






^ 



V «!. ^ " " A 



* i. ^ \v "O^ ■ ^ « <, >- " \v -o, • / « „ S ' 













r: '^v^ 0^ 




■:-:\^i^v/'Ji y 







^-,/ 95, ''^^^\/ 










: "^v^o^ 



.^^ 



< 



:^^ 



.^ 









^0^ -Tiffin t "^d^ 



•^^ 



:^^ 






cP 








j'v% cp\-iy%% ^^^^ri''% ^°^-^ri''% '■^ 



CP 






■9^ Q^ 



r. s ^ , ^^ 9o '' '7; s ^ # 9? 















SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY 
OF THE BIBLE 



By 

^ Louis Wallis 

Author of^^An Examination of Society, ^^ 
'► ■ Formerly Instructor in Economics and Sociology in the 

Ohio State Uni-versity 



THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 




,&1 



Copyright 1912 Bx 
Louis Wallis 



All Rights Reserved 



Published AprU 1912 



Composed and Printed By 

The University of Chicago Press 

Chicago. 111., U.S. A. 








5 



^J- 



i 

1- / 



A 



TO MY WIFE 

CHrar^ (HgUr Hiallta 

WHOSE SYMPATHY AND HELP HAVE BEEN 
A CONSTANT ENCOURAGEMENT 



CONTENTS 



Prefatory 



PART I 

PRELIMINARY VIEW OF THE BIBLE PROBLEM 



CHAPTER 



I. 

II. 

III. 



IV. 

V. 

VI. 

VII. 

VIII. 



IX. 

X. 

XI. 

XII. 

XIII. 

XIV. 

XV. 

XVI. 

XVII. 

XVIII. 

xrx. 

XX. 

XXI. 

XXII. 

XXIII. 

XXIV. 



Introduction 

The Origin of the Hebrew Nation- 
Plan OF THE Present Study . 



PART II 

ELEMENTS OF THE BIBLE PROBLEM 

The Making of the Old Testament 
The Ancient Semitic Peoples 
Kinship Institutions of Israel . 
Industrial Institutions of Israel . 
Early Religious Institutions of Israel 

PART III 

DEVELOPMENT OF BIBLE RELIGION 

General Conditions of the Development 

The Conflicting Standpoints. 

Peoples and Gods in the Judges Period 

Saul's Kingdom in the Hills 

Coalescence of the Races 

The "Increase" of Yahweh . 

The Grouping of the Gods 

The Interaction of Tendencies 

The Beginning of the Mishpat Struggle 

The Prophets and the Mishpat Struggle 

The Mishpat Struggle Takes Final Form 

Religious Effect of the Exile . 

The Jewish Church and the Torah 

Judaism as External Authority . 

Judaism Rejects the Social Problem 

The Struggle for Deliverance . 



PAGE 

ix 



3 
17 

25 



30 
38 
40 

49 
62 



86 

88 

98 

114 

120 

128 

140 
141 

147 
172 
203 
209 
213 
216 
220 



VIU 



CONTENTS 



PART IV 
THE SPREAD OF BIBLE RELIGION 



CHAPTER 

XXV. 

XXVI. 

XXVII. 

XXVIII. 

XXIX. 

XXX. 

XXXI. 



The Work of Jesus 

Christianity and the Social Problem . 

The Catholic Church 

Catholicism Rejects the Social Problem 
The Conversion or the Barbarians 
Catholicism as External Authority 
Justification by Works 



PART V 



PAGE 

242 
248 
252 

255 
258 



THE BIBLE AND ITS RELIGION IN THE MODERN WORLD 

XXXII. Protestantism and the Social Problem . . 264 

XXXIII. Protestantism as External Authority . . . 279 

XXXIV. Protestantism Rejects the Social Problem . . 285 
XXXV. Modern Scientific Bible-Study 289 

XXXVI. Separation of Church and State 292 

XXXVII. The Modern Social Awakening ...... 294 

Appendix (Note on the History of Sociological Bible-Study) . . 299 

Index of Subjects 303 



PREFATORY 

This book is an evolutionary study of Christendom. 
Although it largely takes the form of research into ancient 
history, it is in substance an inquiry into vital questions of 
today. Owing to the recent separation of Church and State, 
there is a tendency to take for granted that religion deals 
only with matters of belief about things that have no concern 
for "practical" persons, or that it relates only to private, 
individual affairs. Hence the need for pointing out that the 
vital religious ideas of Christian society took shape in response 
to a social pressure as tremendous and compelling as that 
in which we live today. 

The present social revival of the church is part of a wider 
awakening which extends beyond the limits of religious 
institutions, and which has already put its deep mark on the 
age. Although every period of history has its own difficulties, 
there are times in which the social problem bids for attention 
more acutely and insistently than at others; and the present 
seems to be such a time. The purpose of this book is to state, 
as clearly and simply as possible, the relation of the Bible to 
the social problem. The title Sociological Study of the Bible 
seems to carry much of its own explanation with it. But the 
term "sociology" is a new one; and some prefatory statement 
of the general drift of the treatise will therefore be of more than 
usual assistance to the reader. 

In the first place, this book takes the standpoint of what is 
called "pure science." It seeks to know the historical facts of 
the subject before it, and to interpret these facts in their 
actual, historical connections. Such being the case, it is 
necessary to enter upon our theme in view of what has already 



X PREFATORY 

been accomplished by investigators in several departments of 
research. 

Modern scientific study has been slowly approaching a time 
in which new disclosures of the connection between religious 
thought and secular experience are possible. The necessary 
division of scientific research into special departments, and the 
consequent slowness of co-operation among speciaHsts, have 
delayed the full appreciation of scientific results among 
scholars themselves, and have made it practically impossible 
for the inteUigent public to share in some of the most fruitful 
achievements of modern scholarship. 

In no lines of scientific research is this more true than in the 
case of the investigations whose results come together in the 
sociological study of the Bible, or, as we have sometimes called 
it, biblical sociology. Hitherto, scientific investigators of the 
Bible have not occupied the technical standpoint of "pure 
sociology"; nor have sociologists been familiar with the 
scientific approach to the Bible. It is, therefore, no matter for 
wonder that the public has been excluded from territories 
which are now opening to the layman. 

The view of the Bible taken by our ancestors a few genera- 
tions ago differed greatly from the view toward which the 
professional scholarship of the modern world has been moving 
in the last hundred years or so. During the Middle Ages, and 
up to the opening of the nineteenth century, it was the universal 
belief of the Christian church that the Bible was the product 
of a mechanical sort of inspiration which left little or nothing 
of essential importance for the human writers of it to do. In 
the same way, it was beheved that the religion of the Bible 
came into the world by a sudden stroke of power, in a purely 
miraculous and quite supernatural manner. These views were 
formed at a time when the prevailing ideas about human 
history, and about the earth on which we live, and about the 
universe at large, were much different from the ideas that now 



PREFATORY xi 

reign supreme in all well-informed circles. The progress of 
scientific research has gradually and unobtrusively changed 
the vast body of belief that characterized the Middle Ages. 
The earth was formerly thought to be a solid structure fixed 
at the center of the universe, with a lighting system, specially 
designed for the needs of our planet, consisting of sun, moon, 
and stars. But the world in which we live is now revealed as 
a floating speck in a cosmos that staggers the greatest intellect. 
The disclosure of this fact is one of a series of brilliant 
scientific discoveries in relation to such matters as the geologic 
formation and age of the world, the vast length and the evolu- 
tionary character of human history, man's place in nature, and 
other subjects of equally vital importance. 

The rising tide of discovery brought with it a slowly mount- 
ing scientific interest in the Bible and its religion. The truth 
forced itself into the minds of careful investigators that the 
Bible was compiled from other books far more ancient than the 
Scriptures. It became clear that the books now standing first 
in the sacred library were among the latest to be composed, 
while other books, which had been hitherto supposed to be of 
late composition, were among the earliest written. The old 
formula, "The Law and the Prophets," was reversed, so as to 
read "The Prophets and the Law." It was discovered that 
the prophets were chiefly preachers to their own times; that 
they were but little concerned with predicting future events; 
and that it was largely through their efforts that the religion 
of the Hebrews was purified from its original heathen, or pagan, 
elements. The new movement in biblical research took shape 
among French, German, and EngHsh investigators, and at last 
came to a focus around the brilliant work by Professor WeU- 
hausen, of the University of Marburg, entitled Geschichte 
Israels, published in the year 1878. In that masterly work, 
the new literary and historical study of the Bible was formu- 
lated and extended in such a way as to command the attention 



xii PREFATORY 

and assent of learned specialists; and it produced a revolution. 
It has been well said by Professor Kuenen, one of the leaders of 
the Dutch critical school, that the publication of Wellhausen's 
Geschichte was the climax of a long campaign for scientific 
study of the Bible.' 

The progress of scientific research and discovery in all 
departments of investigation was naturally opposed by the 
constituted authorities in Church and State. Professors who 
showed heretical symptoms in their opinions about astronomy, 
geology, history, or the Bible were dismissed from their 
chairs. But this policy advertised the new views; and as the 
various aspects of scientific inquiry were better understood, it 
became impossible to secure instructors who completely 
adhered to the older theories. As the public began to reap the 
benefits of scientific research, the truth was gradually per- 
ceived that the work of science cannot be indorsed at one point, 
or at a few points, without being encouraged everywhere. The 
nineteenth century beheld the culmination of scientific 
triumphs in the establishment of the right of untrammeled 
investigation of the Bible in institutions of learning. 

The new view of the Bible is bound up with a new idea of 
Hebrew history and a new conception of the religious life of 
Israel. The religious experience of Israel is now seen to have 
been a rise toward a higher and purer faith, instead of a 
decline toward a lower one. The new views have largely 
displaced the older doctrines in all the leading universities and 
theological seminaries. They are held in various forms by 
different scholars; but there is a common basis of agreement 
which rapidly grows larger as the fundamental facts are better 
understood by professional minds. 

The interested public, standing outside the academic world, 
is aware that great changes have taken place and are even now 
going on; but the real nature of the new scientific view of the 

'Kuenen, The Hexateuch (London, 1886), Introduction, p. xxxix. 



PREFATORY xiii 

Bible, and the evidence upon which that view is based, are but 
little understood by the laity. The public as yet scarcely 
realizes the extent to which the evolutionary principle has been 
applied to the religion of Israel. Professional investigators, 
who have given the most and closest attention to the Bible, 
firmly believe that the idea of God by which ancient Israel 
finally came to be distinguished, is the result of a slow process 
of psychological, or spiritual, development, corresponding in 
some way to stages in the national history of the Hebrews. 
Professor George Adam Smith, now principal of the University 
of Aberdeen, spoke as follows, in a course of lectures delivered 
at Yale University, and reprinted under the title Modern 
Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament: 

The god of early Israel was a tribal god; and His relation to His 
people is described in the same way as Israel's neighbors describe the 
relation of their gods to themselves. Israel looked to Jahweh [Yahweh'] 

as the Moabites looked to Chemosh They prayed to Him to let 

them see their desire on their enemies, ascribed their victories to His love 
for them, their defeats to His anger, and they devoted to Him in slaughter 
their prisoners of war, and the animals they captured from their foes; 
all exactly as their Moabite neighbors are reported, in very much the 
same language, to have done to Chemosh, the god of Moab. Moreover, 
they regarded the power of Jahweh as limited to their own territory, and 
his worship as invalid beyond it (I Sam. 26:19 [i^^ the Hebrew and 
modern Revised Versions]). Though, like all Semites, they felt their 

'The name "Jehovah" was never known to the ancient Hebrews. "Yahweh" 
is perhaps as near as we can come to the original usage. Thus, the word " hallelujah " 
means, "praise Yah," the j being pronounced like y. Sometimes the name was 
abbreviated, as in Ps. 68:4: "His name is YAH." It appears repeatedly as a syllable 
in the names of Hebrew persons, as Isaiah, Elijah, Jeremiah, Hezekiah, etc. The 
Hebrew manuscripts originally contained the name in the form of the Sacred Tetra- 
grammaton, Y-H-W-H, mri"'. But this gives us only the consonants; not the 
vowels. The Tetragrammaton occurs about six thousand eight hundred times in 
the Bible. It is usually represented in the King James Version by "the Lord," or 
"God" in capitals and small capitals; and rarely, as "Jehovah." The American Re- 
vised Version, however, takes us one step closer to the Hebrew by abandoning this 
usage, and printing "Jehovah" whenever the Tetragrammaton occurs in the Hebrew. 

We make use of the form "Yahweh" in accordance with the practice now estab- 
lished in modern scientific treatises. 



xiv PREFATORY 

duty to one God as the supreme Lord of themselves, they did not deny 
the reaUty of other gods.^ 

The foregoing passage relates only to the historical, objective 
aspects of the Hebrew situation. The same writer states his 
theological view of the subject as follows : 

Behind that national deity of Israel, and through the obscure and vain 
imaginations the early nation had of him, there were present the Char- 
acter and Will of God himself, using the people's low thoughts and sym- 
bols to express himself to them, lifting them always a httle higher, and 
finally making himself known as he did through the prophets as the God 
of the Whole Earth, identical with righteousness and abounding in 
mercy.* 

This view is the belief and faith of a devout scholar; and it 
represents the attitude of by far the large majority of those who 
have approached the problem of the Bible in a scientific way. 
As a rule, the modern biblical investigator holds that the 
religion of the Hebrews began on the level of what we commonly 
call "paganism," or "heathenism." He believes that "Yah- 
weh," the national deity of Israel, was at first regarded as a 
local god, one of a large number of divinities that populated 
the mind of the ancient world; that the people's thought 
about him slowly rose to the height at which we find it in the 
great prophets and in Jesus; and that this religious evolution 
was a process guided and controlled by the one true God of 
the universe, who was gradually raising men's thoughts 
upward through the medium of their daily experiences. Thus, 
while the devout scholar does not identify " Yahweh" with the 
true God, he believes that the true God was using the idea of 
Yahweh in such a way as to cause that idea more and more 
to take the character of a worthy symbol of religion. This 
theological position, as a matter of fact, puts far less strain on 
the modern intellect than does the older orthodoxy, and makes 

' G. A. Smith, Modern Criticism and the Preaching of the Old Testament (New York, 
igoi), pp. 128, 129. 

''Biblical World (Chicago, August, 1896), pp. 100, loi. 



PREFATORY xv 

it possible for men to remain within the church who would 
otherwise be outside of it. The reverent scholar believes that 
God uses the history of Israel, and the history of the world, for 
an ineffable, divine purpose which works out slowly across the 
ages. He sees that the human spirit works its purpose within 
the terms of those natural "laws" of physiology, chemistry, 
and political economy which condition the bodily and social 
existence of mankind; and he believes that the universe 
expresses God's personality in the same way that a human life 
gives expression, to human personality. 

While it is but just and proper to speak here of the religious 
and theological beliefs that characterize the body of modern 
biblical critics, it should be said again that this book is a purely 
scientific study of the Bible, which undertakes to state the con- 
nections between the various facts of Hebrew history and 
religion. The limitations of our method forbid us to discuss 
the inner, metaphysical, or theological aspect of the facts. 
We take for granted that Bible students "must acquire the 
art of historical construction by which .... they may .... 
reproduce the history of Israel's religious experience, from 
those early days when Jehovah [Yahweh] was a tribal God who 
went out to battle against the gods of other desert tribes."^ 
Although the subject may be approached from a variety of 
standpoints, the plan of this investigation confines our study 
to one point of view. 

Having indicated the road over which biblical investigators 
are traveling, it is now in order to emphasize that they have 
not yet reached their destination. This is admitted by the 
leading exponents of modern biblical research and interpreta- 
tion. The central feature of the entire problem is, of course, 
the development of the Yahweh religion. We can see very 
plainly that the idea of Yahweh in the earlier Old Testament 
documents is different from what it is in the later documents. 

' Editorial, Biblical World (Chicago, April, 1911), p. 221. 



xvi PREFATORY 

What is the explanation of this difference? How is the 
rehgious evolution before us to be understood ? In what terms 
are we to describe it? Professor Wellhausen himself has 
lately said that we cannot tell why Yahweh of Israel, rather 
than the god Chemosh of Moab, on the eastern side of the 
Dead Sea, evolved into the righteous God of the universe.^ 
President Francis Brown, of Union Theological Seminary, 
has recently written that the problem of the differentiation 
of the later Yahweh from the earher Yahweh, as well as from 
the gods of other nations, has not been solved.^ Professor 
Cook, of the University of Cambridge, writes in a more 
general way as follows : 

While practically all students of the Old Testament agree that a 
thoroughgoing traditional standpoint is untenable, opinion differs as to 
the extent to which the results of modem criticism are really assured. 
The great majority of scholars, however, accept the Wellhausen literary 
theory, but they differ in regard to its application to the early develop- 
ment of Israel. External evidence, alone, clearly guarantees neither 
accuracy of inference nor convergence of results, and since Old Testament 
research is bound not to remain stationary, the conflicting and complex 
tendencies inspire the belief that the present stage is a transitory one.s 

To the same effect, Professor Sanday, of Oxford University, 

says : 

The fashioning of the methods by which the secret of the Old Testa- 
ment is to be approached and eHcited has taken many centuries. We are 
not yet agreed about it; but I do not think that it is being too sanguine 
to feel that we are drawing nearer to it.'' 

In a treatise on the history of Bible-study, Professor George 
H. Gilbert also speaks of the "partial and imperfect dawn of a 

'Wellhausen, "Israelitisch-jiidische Religion," in Kultur der Gegenwart (Berlin, 
1909), Teil 1,15. 

=■ Old Testament and Semitic Studies in Honor of William Rainey Harper (Chicago, 

1908), p. XXX. 

3 Essays on Some Biblical Questions by Members of the University of Cambridge 
(London, 1909), p. 54. 

"Sanday, The Oracles of God (London, 1891), p. 120. 



PREFATORY xvii 

new era of interpretation.'" This general attitude, we believe, 
is that of all candid biblical investigators whose method and 
standpoint are those of the prevailing school of scientific 
research. We have compared the modern school to travelers 
who have not reached their destination; but another figure 
may also be employed. The scientific view of the Bible is like 
a house in process of construction. Most opponents of the 
evolutionary view of Israel's religion make the tactical mistake 
of assuming that the house is completed; and they criticize it 
on the basis of that assumption. But while some of the second- 
hand popularizers of the modern view have committed the 
same error, no reliable, first-hand authority has ever said any- 
thing of the kind; and the attitude of responsible scholarship 
has always been to the effect of the testimony quoted above. 
The "house" is in process of construction."" 

These frank admissions by scientific investigators of the 
Bible are to be held sharply in mind when examining the 
opinions of the modern school respecting the development of 
Hebrew religion. As the result of an inquiry whose details 
need not be given here, it may be fairly said that such opinions 
find an average in the proposition that the religious develop- 
ment of Israel is to be explained by the "genius of the great 
prophets." This way of stating the case is varied by saying 

' Gilbert, History of the Interpretation of the Bible (New York, 1908), pp. 291, 292. 
Cf. Jordan, Comparative Religion (New York, 1905), p. 491. 

^ The assumption that the modern view is a finished system is one of the mistakes 
that vitiate the recent volume entitled The Problem of the Old Testament, by Professor 
James Orr, of the United Free Church College, of Glasgow. While making concessions 
to the modern school, Professor Orr speaks on behalf of traditionalism. It has been 
observed with what appears to be great probability, that Orr's work shows signs of 
having been written many years ago, soon after the publication of Wellhausen's 
Geschichte, and then retouched here and there. If this deduction is correct, it 
goes a long way toward explaining the general atmosphere of Professor Orr's book. 
If it were not composed soon after the publication of WeUhausen's treatise, its 
author's views were certainly formed at that time, and then taken many years later, 
by unsuspecting persons, as the "latest conclusions," etc. The present writer has 
discussed certain phases of Professor Orr's work in a paper in the American Journal 
of Theology (Chicago, April, 1908), pp. 241-49. 



x^iii PREFATORY 

that the creative influence of the prophets is due to "their 
peculiar experience of God." It is not probable that scholars 
will continue to state their opinions in this form as the scientific 
interpretation of the Bible proceeds into stages of greater 
maturity. It is only with feeHngs of respect for the modern 
school, and of gratitude for its indispensable service to the 
cause of scientific learning, that the writer ventures the opinion 
that this view of Israel's religious evolution belongs in the 
realm of theology and metaphysics only, and that it has no 
standing as a matter of science and history. 

Modern scientific investigation of the Bible, after aU, is 
only a special application of methods already employed in 
examining the literature and history of the world's great 
nations. Scientific biblical research, therefore, is not a thing 
in a corner. It is answerable to the progress of method in the 
study of all human history. The "historical method" took 
its rise among the ancient Greeks, who were the first to achieve 
emancipation from the reign of mythology. The beginnings 
of the process are described by Professor Bury, of Cambridge 
University, in his Harvard lectures on the ancient Greek 
historians : 

Long before history, in the proper sense of the word, came to be 
written, the early Greeks possessed a literature which was equivalent to 
history for them, and was accepted with unreserved credence — their epic 

poems The age of the heroes, as described in the epics, was 

marked by divine interventions, frequent intercourse between gods and 

men, startling metamorphoses, and all kinds of miracles Every 

self-respecting city sought to connect itself, through its ancient clans, 
with the Homeric heroes, and this constituted the highest title to prestige 
in the Greek world 

One of the most serious impediments blocking the way to a scientific 
examination of early Greece [by the Greek historians themselves] was the 
orthodox belief in Homer's omniscience and infallibiHty— a beHef which 
survived the attacks of the Ionian philosophers and the irony of Thucy- 
dides. Eratosthenes boldly asserted the principle that the critic, in 
studying Homer, must remember that the poet's knowledge was limited 



PREFATORY xix 

by the conditions of his age, which was a comparatively ignorant 
age 

The Greeks did not suddenly create, but rather by a gradual process 
of criticism evolved history, disengaging it from the mythic envelope in 
which fact and fiction were originally blended 

In his Introduction Thucydides announces a new conception of his- 
torical writing He saw, as we see, that the mythical element 

pervaded Herodotus (of whom, evidently, he was chiefly thinking) no 
less than Homer. His own experience in ascertaining contemporary 
facts taught him, as nothing else could do, how soon and how easily 
events are wont to pass into the borders of myth 

If the Greeks had possessed records extending over the history of two 
or three thousand years, the conception of causal development would 
probably have emerged, and they might have founded scientific history. 
The limitation of their knowledge of the past to a few centuries disabled 
them from evolving this idea.^ 

The process begun by the ancient Greeks was adjourned 
throughout the Middle Ages in Europe, and then taken up by 
modern historical scholars. One of the leading investigators 
of the problem of history was the great German scholar 
Niebuhr, who reconstructed ancient Roman history. As Nie- 
buhr said, "many of the narratives in the earliest history 
of Rome betray their fabulous nature by the contradictions 
and impossibilities they involve."^ All nations have con- 
fidently held certain beliefs about their early history, which the 
scientific scholar is bound to challenge. For example, the 
Romans believed that their government was connected with 
Romulus and Remus, two sons of Mars, the god of war. These 
brothers were born of a virgin. When they reached manhood, 
there was a dispute as to which of them should have the honor 
of naming the city. The controversy was terminated by the 
victory of Romulus, who had the larger number of adherents. 
The city was named after him; and he became king. When 
the time of his death arrived, the light of the sun was veiled; 

' Bury, The Ancient Greek Historians (New York, 1909), pp. 2, 10, 2, 189, 240, 81, 
258. 

* Niebuhr, History of Rome (New York, 1826), Vol. I, p. 603. 



XX PREFATORY 

and while the earth was plunged in shade, the kmg's father, 
Mars, descended in a whirlwind and carried his son to heaven 
in a chariot of fire. Later, the spirit of the glorified hero 
appeared to one of the Roman nobles with the message that 
he would watch over the fortunes of Rome in the form of a 
god. For many centuries, this mythology was a matter of 
literal and serious belief among the Roman people. Its affinity 
with the Homeric tales of early Greece is so close and obvious 
as to require no comment. 

The earliest way of treating history, then, consists in 
accepting uncritically all traditions that come down from the 
past, and weaving these traditions together into a connected 
narrative. The mythological part of tradition may relate to 
"the gods," or it may turn around actual historical characters, 
such as David, Charlemagne, Alfred, Napoleon, or Washing- 
ton. But the frame of mind which leads to the uncritical 
acceptance of all tradition is fundamentally the same, and has 
been well described by Niebuhr as "the prostration of the 
understanding and judgment." Whoever would really know 
human history, and understand the social problem now pressing 
upon us for solution, must reckon with the important fact of 
mythology. It was the perception of this principle with more 
or less vividness that led the ancient Greek historians to lay the 
foundations of the critical, historical method. The realization 
of the same truth in a fuller degree has been a factor of high 
importance in the modern progress of historical science. Thus, 
opposition to the historical method necessarily carries one back 
toward mythology. To oppose criticism is to be uncritical. 

The scientific historian, first of all, seeks to ascertain "facts." 
He does not at first undertake to interpret facts. He simply 
tries to lay bare what may be called "the raw material of 
history. ' ' This fundamental inquiry is dealt with by analyzing 
the evidence that bears upon the situation. The Greeks, as 
Professor Bury says, evolved history by "disengaging it from 



PREFATORY xxi 

its mythic envelope" {supra). The primary work of the 
scientific investigator of history, then, is to draw the distinction 
between myths and facts. On the one side, he accumulates 
a mass of real or supposed myths; and on the other side, he 
gathers a mass of real or supposed facts. The myths are not 
cast into the limbo of mere curiosities. They are held aside 
for later study and interpretation. As a rule, they are not 
mere idle tales; and they teach positive lessons about history 
even when they are not accepted as Hterally true. 

After facts have been separated from their mythic envelope, 
the demands upon the historian become different. There now 
emerges the leading question, What are the connections between 
the facts ? How are the facts related to each other ? How is 
history to be controlled and interpreted? In other words, 
after the historian has taken his material apart (analysis), he 
is called upon to put it together (synthesis). The most fruitful 
treatment of history from the synthetic point of view has been 
made only in modern times, and within the last few generations. 
The history of the civilized world has been carefully investi- 
gated and rewritten; and there has also appeared a crowd of 
"historical sciences" deaHng with various phases, or aspects, 
of history — ^pohtical, religious, moral, domestic, economic, 
legal, etc. 

But the modern writing of history has not exhausted the 
possibilities of the subject. The consideration that now 
forces itself into view is the fact that all historical specialists 
are working, from different points of approach, upon the same 
subject, the problem of organized human life. The full mean- 
ing of this fact, however, is not calculated to break upon the 
mind at a single stroke. The political historian, for instance, 
is engaged upon facts which may also be treated from other 
standpoints by the economist or the moralist. The various 
phases, or aspects, of history cannot be held apart as inde- 
pendent series of facts. No single one of these disciplines, or 



xxii PREFATORY 

sciences, can treat its problems without leaving its territory 
and appealing to facts that confessedly stand outside of its 
purview. Hence, the special historical or social sciences are 
abstractions (matters abstracted, or taken away) from the con- 
crete sum total of human life. Thus, politics, economics, 
morals, religion, etc., investigate the same human life which is 
found in all the special facts. So that if human history is 
ever to be really known and explained it must be treated as 
an "organic whole." 

Now, the investigation and description of the connecting 
principles of history has taken to itself the term "sociology" 
— the word about society, or the logic of society. Probably 
there will never be a large number of investigators devoted 
entirely to the work of pure sociology; but the sociological 
standpoint is gradually becoming more and more common to 
all scientific workers in the field of history. Sociology was 
formerly regarded in some quarters as a campaign to crowd 
aside the economist, the political scientist, the moralist, and all 
other scholars, and organize their materials into a new philoso- 
phy which was to take the place of the disciplines already 
established. While some overzealous writers may have con- 
veyed such an impression, nothing could be farther from the 
aims of responsible workers in this line of research. The aim of 
scientific sociology is to help specialists in all fields of historico- 
social investigation to work more consciously in view of their 
common subject-matter — human life as a whole. Specialists 
are always in danger of devitalizing their material by treating 
it abstractly; and in the degree that they realize the inter- 
connection of their studies, they will co-operate efficiently in 
expounding the problems of human life. 

Sociology approaches history from the standpoint of the 
evolution of the " social group." Here, again, the full meaning 
of the statement is not at once clear. "The idea of the group 



PREFATORY xxiii 

as a means of interpretation is emerging more clearly," writes 
President George E. Vincent, of the University of Minnesota. 
"Society is too vague and abstract a concept. It is useful for 
symbolic purposes and for generalized description, but to have 
any vividness of meaning it must be translated into more con- 
crete terms. "^ Human history is not concerned with the 
doings of isolated individuals, who, like Robinson Crusoe, live 
apart by themselves. It relates to the evolution of organized 
groups, or communities. The different historical disciplines,, 
or social sciences, approach the mechanism of society from a 
number of standpoints. Thus, while economics, politics, 
ethics, ecclesiastics, etc., are engaged upon the study of social 
groups, they treat the matter from different angles. Econom- 
ics considers the industrial phase of group-life; politics, the 
governmental forms and activities of the group; ethics, the 
moral standards; ecclesiastics, the religious ideas and institu- 
tions; and so on. Sociology attempts to describe the structure 
and life of social mechanisms, and thus to give a point of 
departure for all special studies in history and the social 
problem. History is the biography of human society; and if it 
is to be explained in a scientific way, it must be treated as an 
' ' organic whole. ' ' Sociology attempts to correlate the essential 
facts and forces of life in a single perspective. 

The meaning of sociology, however, is best indicated, not by 
the multiplication of general statements, but by an appeal to 
some concrete, practical human interest. This book illustrates, 
the standpoint of modern sociology in reference to the "reli- 
gious" interest. Its view is that the still unfinished historical 
interpretation of the Bible can be completed only in terms of 
sociology. It is written in the belief that the division of 
scientific scholarship into "departments" has delayed the full' 
appreciation and use of scientific results among scholars them- 

' American Journal of Sociology (Chicago, January, 191 1), p. 469. 



xxiv PREFATORY 

selves; and its form is due to the conviction that the intelligent 
public may now be taken more fully into the field of biblical 
and sociological study. 

It has perhaps already become clear that the book is an 
examination of Hebrew history in relation to the idea of God. 
The older view of the Bible and its religion did not suppose that 
the history of the Hebrew people had anything to do with 
shaping, or "causing," the religious ideas peculiar to Israel; 
and the thought of such a connection is even yet a novelty to 
most readers of the Bible. But it should be observed at once 
that the old view of the nature and origin of Hebrew rehgion is 
bound up with a view of Hebrew history which has been dis- 
credited in all the foremost institutions of learning. According 
to the old view, the nation called "Israel" consisted of the 
descendants of a single race, or family. It was organized at a 
single stroke, in the wilderness of Arabia. Taking the form of 
a mighty army, under the generalship of a single commander, 
the militant nation attacked the land of Canaan, drove out the 
" Amorites," and then divided the entire land by lot among the 
different clans or tribes which constituted the invading army. 
This view is based on the first six books of the Old Testa- 
ment known as the Hexateuch, which comprise the titles from 
Genesis through Joshua. The traditional view stated in a 
"sociological" way, then, is that the group-organization of the 
Hebrews was determined and fixed by law at the very beginning 
of the national history, and was not the result of development 

But modern historical investigation has demonstrated that 
the Hexateuch in its present form is a very late product of 
Hebrew life; that it was unknown to the Hebrews throughout 
the larger part of their time of residence in Palestine ; and that 
the conception of the national history which has just been 
cited is impossible. We can state only the facts in this place 
leaving the study of details and evidence to the formal part of 
our treatise. The books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings are 



PREFATORY xxv 

older than the Hexateuch; and the story which they tell about 
the origin of the Hebrew nation departs conspicuously from 
that of the narratives embodied in the first six books of the 
Old Testament. According to these older documents, the land 
of Canaan was invaded, not by a "nation" organized as a 
grand army under one general, but by a number of independent 
clans which had no common organization. These clans, 
coming in from the desert, merely succeeded in planting them- 
selves here and there in the highlands of Judah, Ephraim, and 
Gilead. They did not drive out nor annihilate the Amorites; 
but the previous inhabitants remained in possession of a long 
list of walled cities, most of which were in the lowlands. The 
Hebrew nation, as known to history, arose at the point of coales- 
cence between the incoming Israelite clans and the Amorite city- 
states already established in Canaan. The Amorite cities 
remained for a time independent (throughout the period of the 
Judges and the reign of King Saul) ; but under the House of 
David, the earlier inhabitants became assimilated with the 
Israelite monarchy, and lost their racial identity. During the 
long period between the original invasion and the great Baby- 
lonian captivity, the Hebrew people and their kings did not 
observe the law of the national constitution recorded in the 
Hexateuch ; and this law was finally brought forward in its com- 
pleted form, and adopted after the Captivity, by the "Jews," a 
remnant of the old Hebrew people. 

This general view is novel to the layman; but it is a com- 
monplace to the scholar who is in possession of the results of 
scientific investigation of the Bible. The origin of the Hebrew 
nation at the point of coalescence between Israelites and 
Amorites has been often pointed out by critical historians ; but 
while the fact is known to all scientific students of the Bible, 
its vital and intimate connection with the problem of Hebrew 
religion has not been worked out. This is due, not to the lack 
of "evidence," but to the fact that biblical scholarship, as a 



xxvi PREFATORY 

whole, has not yet made the standpoint of modern sociology its 
own.' The technique of the study undertaken in this book 
may be stated here in a brief, introductory form. 

A great struggle arose between the standpoints of the two 
races that united in the development of the Hebrew nation. 
In the long run, the two sides of the struggle came to be 
symbolized by the terms "Yahweh" and "Baal," which 
indicate the gods of the races that combined in the national 
group. By one and the same process, the national deity 
Yahweh became identified with warfare against "other gods" 
and warfare against "injustice." Although the process was a 
very gradual one, reaching its issue only by slow stages, the 
logic of the final result was present in the situation from the 
time the Israelites and Amorites combined in the same group. 
Like a spirit of invisible fate, this logic tormented and pursued 
the prophets, until at last the local Baal-worship, derived from 
the Amorites, became the means whereby the Hebrew religion 
was detached from polytheism and injustice. This peculiar 
development of religion took place within the terms of the 
Hebrew group-evolution, which, as we shall presently see, was 
unlike that of any other ancient people. 

The Amorites, who were already planted in the land, had no 
national government and no national religion. They con- 
sisted of independent city-states, each of which worshiped its 
own god , or " B aal . " These B aals were identified with the social 
standpoint and economic ideas of settled civilization. They 
were the divine "masters," or "owners," of the Amorite people; 
and the leading men of the upper social class were likewise 
called "baals," because they were the human owners of the 
Amorite people. The common man was looked upon with 

' In the case of many individual scholars, however, the study of the Bible is already 
moving on from the literary and historical stages into a sociological form. We do not 
seek to create the impression that present-day biblical science is any more backward 
in its tendencies than other existing scientific disciplines. The adoption of the modern 
view of Hebrew history by biblical scholars is the proof of this. 



I 



\ 



PREFATORY xxvii 

scant respect all through ancient civilization (but not among 
the nomadic or semi-nomadic peoples of the wilderness). As 
a rule, to which there were few exceptions, most of the inhabi- 
tants in the settled countries were in the grip of some kind of 
slavery; while a small, upper class used all the machinery of 
government and religion to make their grip firmer. The ruling 
force of ancient civilization was against the modern ideal of 
popular government. Society was defended from barbarism 
by a paid police; while the enslaved peasant was treated as a 
base of military supplies. This theory of life held sway among 
the Babylonians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Amorites, and other 
settled peoples. "" 

On the contrary, the ideas and usages of all unsettled races 
take a different form. The integrity of a wandering clan 
depends upon the good treatment of its individual members. 
Hence, the idea of "brotherhood" stands in the forefront of 
the social consciousness of migratory, unsettled races. While 
ancient civilization holds manhood at a discount, the nomadic 
barbarian takes manhood at its par value. Examples are the 
Germanic tribes in ancient Europe, the American Indians, the 
Australian tribes, the clans of Arabia, and other unsettled 
peoples. Now, the Israelites, prior to the invasion of Canaan, 
were a migratory people, broken up into small clans. Their 
economic and social standpoint was expressed in their cus- 
tomary usage, or law, known as mishpat. This word is trans- 
lated in our English Bibles as "justice," "judgment," "that 
which is lawful," etc. But in one passage, the Hebrew term 
is represented in modern letters as the name of a fountain, or 
spring, in the southern wilderness: "En-mishpat (the same is 
Kadesh)."^ This was the "Well of Justice," where the legal 

' As we shall see in the course of our study, this theory stood for the necessity of 
the situation. The great civilizations that have generated and built up the progress 
of history were constantly open to the attacks of barbarians; and the imperialistic 
form of society was a defensive measure. Nevertheless, it was hard on the masses of 
the people. 

^Gen. 14:7. 



xxviii PREFATORY 

usages of the wilderness clans were declared in the name of 
Yahweh; and the word "Kadesh," meaning "holy," indicates 
that it was a sanctuary. 

The rise of the Hebrew nation at the point of coalescence 
between Amorites and Israelites brought the social standpoints 
of ancient civilization and the primitive clan into sharp conflict. 
A great struggle was precipitated over the subject of mishpat. 
"What are good law and good morals?" The conflict ulti- 
mately came to a center about the question whether Yahweh 
should be worshiped in the character of a "civilized" Baal, 
who countenanced the usages of civilization and who was 
distinguished from other gods only by his might and power, or 
whether he should be worshiped in his original character as a 
god of the clan mishpat. The more Israelite section of the 
people (the highlanders) contended for the humane view taken 
by the wilderness folk; and their standpoint was voiced by the 
great "insurgent" prophets, most of whom came from small 
places in the open country. But the more Amorite part of the 
nation contended for the "civilized" view, with its disregard of 
the common man; and their standpoint was voiced by the 
"regular" prophets, who were connected with the wealthy 
nobility. The mishpat struggle commenced in a very confused 
way, taking the form of revolt against the kings. But later it 
assumed a more distinctly religious form when one of the kings, 
who had imported the Baal- worship of the wealthy Phoeni- 
cians, took away the land of a humble peasant by force. The 
great prophet Elijah now came forward, from the highlands of 
Gilead, in defense of the old Israelite law and morals for which 
the worship of Yahweh had stood in the wilderness days. This 
great prophet opposed the worship of the foreign Baal, which 
was in time thrust out by a violent and bloody revolution. 
The social problem, however, was not settled by such means; 
and the later prophets learned that it was necessary to struggle 
not only against the Baal-worship imported from foreign parts. 



in 



I.' 

I 



PREFATORY xxix 

but to fight the native Baalism which the Hebrew nation had 
inherited from the Amorite side of its ancestry. The struggle 
between Yahwism and Baalism was vastly more than a mere 
conflict over the question whether the Hebrews should bow 
down to this or that god. It was the form in which the great 
underlying moral and economic struggle of classes came to the 
surface of history. 

There have been moral aspiration and endeavor among every 
people under the sun. There have been struggles between 
rich and poor in all nations. The Hebrews had no patent on 
ethics, and no monopoly of economic agitation. But the 
struggle which at last came to a burning focus around Yahwism 
and Baalism was the religious expression of the unique political 
development of the Hebrews. The peculiarity of the entire 
Old Testament situation, then, lay not in its moral and 
economic aspects, but in the uncommon political development 
of society. This is not at first clear to those who have not 
completely assimilated the sociological point of view. The 
secret lies in the close connection between Church and State, 
Religion and Politics, throughout the ancient world. While 
other nations have had economic and moral struggles, no 
national development has ever taken exactly the same political 
form as that of Israel. 

This is made clear by the use of a number of illustrations. 
The Israelite conquest of Canaan may be compared with the 
Kassite conquest of Babylonia, the Hyksos conquest of Egypt, 
or, to come nearer home, the Norman conquest of England. 
The Normans, the Kassites, and the Hyksos, when going into 
the lands they conquered, found national group-organizations 
already formed. But in the case of the Hebrews, on the 
contrary, the previous inhabitants of the land had no general 
government. The Amorites were broken up into city-states, 
or provincial bodies. And it was the invading Israelites who 
eventually supplied the framework of national government and 



XXX PREFATORY 

religion. The Hebrew kingdom began in the time of Saul, as 
a movement among the IsraeHte highlanders. The older, 
Amorite population of the land was at length incorporated in 
the monarchy under the House of David; and the god Yahweh 
became the national deity of the entire group. In this way, 
a divinity of the wilderness and the hills was introduced 
with comparative abruptness to an ancient civilized people. 
Although the Amorites mingled their blood with the new- 
comers', took the name of Israel, and lost their identity as a 
race, the Amorite standpoint and the Amorite Baals remained 
as powerful factors in the life of the Hebrew nation. Here, 
for the first time in history, we encounter a nation in which the 
struggle of classes takes the form of a consistent warfare 
between the gods of the nation itself. The Amorite Baals 
became the dark villains of a tremendous moral drama; while 
Yahweh became the Mighty Hero of a long struggle against 
"the iniquity of the Amorite," and then at last the Redeemer 
of the World. The religion of the Bible is, in truth, a new 
thing. The political variation of Hebrew history from that of 
other peoples generated a new "variety" of religion. The 
contact between the cult of the wilderness and the cult of 
civilization produced a "cross-fertilization of culture" which 
led to the birth of a unique religion. A new body of spiritual 
thought was born which avoided the religious evils of civiliza- 
tion and nomadism, and combined their virtues. As already 
observed, the "substance" of Hebrew history was like that 
of other nations; but its "form" opened a new channel for the 
working of the human mind, suggesting thoughts that had never 
before flashed through the brain of man. The imagination of 
Israel's prophets took fire, and blazed up in a great spiritual 
flame that has pierced through the ages and illuminated the 
history of the world. These considerations, together with the 
evidence on which they rest and their bearing on present-day 
problems, wiU occupy us in our sociological study of the Bible. 



PREFATORY . xxxi 

The book is practically a general thesis on the religious 
phase of civilization, approaching the development of human 
society from the standpoint of religious interests. It aims to 
show that the Bible may be taken as a point of departure for 
investigation of the entire process of social evolution. It con- 
tends that the Bible is not a strange thing, let down into 
human history from regions lying outside the pale of common 
interests. It views the Bible as an organic item of human life, 
identified in its nature and purpose with the Reality that 
underlies the history of the world. Accordingly, the book is 
an inductive work, based not only on a direct study of the 
Bible itself, but on the examination of evidence lying outside 
the field usually regarded as "Bible-study." Sociological 
study of the Bible is interested not only in the process by 
which the religion of the Bible was born; it is interested in the 
social circumstances under which that religion propagated 
itself onward in ancient, mediaeval, and modern history; and 
it is also concerned with the social aspect under which the 
religion of the Bible exists in the world now. The facts of 
religious experience are best appreciated when the religious 
phase of civilization is viewed as one process. Setting out from 
this principle, we cannot limit the sociological study of the 
Bible to the age that produced the Bible. Only when the 
Scriptures are viewed in the light of general history can a study 
like the present be made to yield the largest benefit. 

It is believed that the book will be chiefly serviceable in two 
ways : First, by cultivating a scientific outlook upon the social 
problem in ancient history, it aims to encourage a similar 
attitude with reference to the social problem now pressing upon 
us. As the student "observes the evolution of political and 
social life in Bible times and sees the consequent evolution of 
moral and religious ideals, it becomes perfectly natural for him 
to employ in the attempt to understand the life of his own day 
and generation those very principles which have proved to be 



xxxii PREFATORY 

fruitful in the understanding of the Bible. He is thus pre- 
pared in spirit to make a positive and efficient use of the help 
which social science and history furnish in the analysis and 
solution of our own moral problems.'"" 

The other way in which the sociological study of the Bible 

should be of service hes in demonstrating that the church 

organization of today should not identify itself with poHtical 

and economic programs. The present awakening of rehgious 

people to the social side of rehgion brings with it a real peril. 

The reaction from the former one-sided emphasis upon "in- 

dividuahsm," and "personal wrongdoing," seems to be taking 

us over toward the opposite extreme. More and more we hear 

it said that the church machinery should put itself behind 

projects of social reform — such as liquor legislation, child-labor 

laws, unionism, socialism, etc. If the church should lend itself 

to social reform, it would have to take up some definite position 

with regard to politics and economics. But men have always 

differed about politics ; and if this view of church life prevails, 

those who do not favor the particular program adopted by 

their church cannot support the organization; and this would 

convert the church into a political party. Our chief guide 

here must be the testimony of experience. The witness of 

history is in favor of the complete separation of Church and 

State. The Church may be compared to a great electric 

dynamo. The function of a dynamo is to "generate energy," 

and convert "power" into a useful form. Any proposition 

that seeks to turn the Church away from its function as a 

generator of moral and spiritual energy looks back to the 

troublous times when religion was a political issue. 

Two books, dealing with special aspects of our main theme, 
have been published by the author of this work. The book 
now issued considers the problem in a general and systematic 
way. It is a recasting of a number of papers which have 

' Editorial, The Biblical World (Chicago), October, 1909, p. 222. 



PREFATORY xxxiii 

appeared in the American Journal of Sociology at various times 
during the last ten years. The material has also been worked 
over in lecture courses at the Ohio State University; the 
Plymouth Congregational Church, Columbus, Ohio; the First 
Congregational Church, Columbus, Ohio; the Abraham 
Lincoln Center, Chicago, Illinois; and in a private correspond- 
ence course given to students in the United States and other 
countries. 

The material has been examined, in one form or another, by 
several persons to whom the writer is under various obliga- 
tions. If any of these are not included in the list that follows, 
the omission is unintentional: Professor William F. Bade, of 
the Pacific Theological Seminary; Professor George A. Barton, 
of Bryn Mawr College; Professor George R. Berry, of Colgate 
University; Professor Walter R. Betteridge, of Rochester 
Theological Seminary; Professor Charles Rufus Brown, of the 
Newton Theological Institution; Professor Shirley J. Case, 
of the University of Chicago; Professor Arthur E. Davies, of 
the Ohio State University; Professor Winfred N. Donovan, of 
the Newton Theological Institution ; Professor Henry T. Fowler, 
of Brown University; Rev. Allen H. Godbey, Ph.D., St. 
Louis, Mo. ; Dr. Thomas W. Goodspeed, of the University 
of Chicago; Rev. Edward A. Henry, of the University of 
Chicago; Professor Albert E. Hetherington, of Columbian 
College; Dr. Daniel D. LuckenbiU, of the University of 
Chicago; Professor Shailer Mathews, of the University of 
Chicago; Professor George F. Moore, of Harvard University; 
Professor Lewis B. Paton, of Hartford Theological Seminary; 
Professor Ira M. Price, of the University of Chicago; Professor 
Edward A. Ross, of the University of Wisconsin; Professor 
Nathaniel Schmidt, of Cornell University; Professor Albion 
W. Small, of the University of Chicago; Professor Henry 
Preserved Smith, of the Meadville Theological School; Pro- 
fessor John M. P. Smith, of the University of Chicago; 



xxxiv PREFATORY 

Professor Martin Sprengling, of Northwestern College; Profes- 
sor Crawford H. Toy, of Harvard University; Professor Lester 
F. Ward, of Brown University. 

Special acknowledgment should be made of the assistance 
given by Professor Albion W. Small, Head of the Department 
of Sociology in the University of Chicago. Professor Small's 
interest in the relation between sociology and religion is of long 
standing. The problem began to engage his attention at the 
time when the names of Kuenen, Wellhausen, Stade, and 
others were coming into prominence in the application of 
historical criticism to the Bible. As far back as 1894, he pub- 
lished the following statement of the genetic relationship 
between sociology and criticism: "Sociology is in part a 
product of the critical method which has become standard in 
historical investigation since Niebuhr's reconstruction of 
Roman History.'" His view is, that the historical criticism of 
the Bible must inevitably take sociological form. In 1905 he 
said: "Every one of us was taught to believe that certain 
representatives of the Hebrew race had different means of 
communicating with God from those that are available today. 
We consequently accepted a version of Hebrew history which 
made out of it a fantastic tradition that only began to take on 
the semblance of reality within the recollection of living men."* 
At the same time, in referring to the psychology of ethics and 
religion, he wrote: "Sociology will at last contribute in its 
own way to these subjects."^ Again, writing in 1910, he said: 
" I do not think that social science can ever be a substitute for 
religion. It is getting plainer and plainer, however, that social 
science .... is the only rational body for religion."'' Pro- 
fessor Small's view of this problem has been formed as the 

' Small and Vincent, Introduction to the Study of Society (New York, 1894), p. 45. 

' Small, General Sociology (Chicago, 1905), p. 483. 

3 Ibid., p. 465. 

* Small, The Meaning of Social Science (Chicago, 1910), p. 275. 



PREFATORY xxxv 

result of investigations in general sociology, and not through 
special research in Hebrew history. We refer to him at some 
length here, not to claim his support for any of the special 
theses found in this book, but in order to exhibit the grounds 
on which he has actively promoted the undertaking which the 
book represents. His aid has been extended in ways too 
numerous for mention in this place. 

With the above exception, it would be a matter of consider- 
able embarrassment to single out other names from the fore- 
going list, however strong the temptation may be to do so. 
In each case, attention and criticism have been given as a 
matter of professional interest. 

While the book is identical in substance with the papers 
published in the American Journal of Sociology, its present 
form is different from that of the magazine series. 

Quotations from the Bible in this work foUow the American 
Standard Edition of the Revised Bible (copyright 1901 by 
Thomas Nelson & Sons), which is used by permission. A few 
words are transliterated, such as "Yahweh," "mishpat,'' etc.; 
and other slight differences of usage will be evident upon 
comparison. 

MroDLE Divinity Hall 
5855 Ellis Avenue 
Chicago, Illinois 

Author's Note. — In response to inquiries, the author states that he is 
not at present an instructor in any educational institution, and that he does 
not speak as the representative of any organization. 



i 



PART I 
PRELIMINARY VIEW OF THE BIBLE PROBLEM 



CHAPTER I 
INTRODUCTION 

The social awakening. — No demonstration is needed to 
prove that the world is in the midst of a great social awaken- 
ing. The pressure of the "social problem " is felt in all depart- 
ments of life. We meet it in business, in politics, in the 
home, in the school, and in the church. The awakening of the 
church to this issue is one of the most important signs of the 
times. The social side of religion has not always been empha- 
sized as it is now. We are indeed only in the beginning of a 
new epoch of thought.^ 

The twofold outlook of Bible religion — individual and social. 
— ^The present awakening to the social problem brings 
the church into a new attitude with reference to the Bible. 
In earlier times, the chief emphasis of the church was placed 
upon the salvation of the individual; while the Bible itself has 
not only a personal outlook, but a social appeal as well. The 
importance of the situation disclosing itself in the religious 
life of today comes before us with great power as we study 
the essential nature of the religion around which the church 
is organized. 

' The point of chief danger in the present social awakening of the church is not 
over-emphasis upon the social factor, but the tendency to compromise the church with 
programs of social reform. If the church should lend itself to social reform, it would 
be forced, necessarily, to take up some definite position with regard to politics and 
economics. But since men have always differed about politics, those who did not 
favor the program adopted by the church could not support the organization; and this 
would convert the church into a political party. Our chief guide here must be the 
testimony of experience. The witness of history is in favor of the separation of Church 
and State. The church may be compared to a great electric dynamo, whose fimction is 
to convert power into useful forms. Any proposal that seeks to turn the church away 
from its fimction as a moral and spiritual dynamo looks back toward the troublous 
times when Church and State were connected, and religious questions were political 
issues. 

3 



4 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

The personal, or private, appeal of the Bible religion is 
so familiar that we need not dwell on it in this connection: 
"Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his 
thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have 
mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly 
pardon" (Is. 55:7). The principle thus declared by the 
prophet is tested by the psalmist: "My sin I made known to 
thee; and mine iniquity I did not hide. I said, I will confess 
my transgression to the Lord. Then thou forgavest mine 
iniquity and my sin. Blessed is he whose transgression is 
forgiven; whose sin is covered" (Ps. 32 :5, i). In dependence 
upon the Old Testament, the same principle is dramatized in 
the parable of the Prodigal Son, in which the wicked for- 
sakes his way, returns to his father, and is forgiven (Luke 
15 : 11-32). God is not only regarded as demanding righteous- 
ness and forgiving iniquity: he is also viewed as actively in 
partnership with man in the struggle against evil: "Create in 
me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me" 
(Ps. 51:10). 

On the other hand, the religion around which the church 
of today is organized makes just as positive an appeal to the 
social, or public, interest. A brief study makes the fact per- 
fectly clear. Thus, in contrast with passages that have a 
distinctly individual bearing, we read, "Let justice roll down 
like waters" (Amos 5:24); "Rulers shall govern in justice" 
(Isa. 32:1); "Hear, I pray you, ye heads of Jacob and rulers 
of the house of Israel, is it not for you to know justice?" 
(Mic. 3:1). 

It may be said that these passages merely urge personal 
uprightness on the part of government of&cials in the same 
way that we now demand good men and righteous conduct 
in pubHc ofi&ce. But the reply to this is, that the Hebrew 
term translated "justice" will not bear a merely personal 
interpretation. This term is one of the great, outstanding 



INTRODUCTION ^ S 

words of the Bible; and it conveys a wealth of meaning that 
is not apparent on the surface. In the passages quoted above, 
the King James Version renders "judgment," while the Ameri- 
can Revised Version translates " justice." We find the Hebrew 
term itself spelled in English letters in Gen. 14:7, as follows: 
M-i-s-H-p-A-T.^ The word mishpat occurs in the Bible in a 
great variety of connections, and is variously translated ac- 
cording to the shade of meaning. It is rendered not only by 
the words "justice" and "judgment," but also by "law," 
"legal right," "custom," "manner," "ordering," etc. It 
points to the social arrangements, or institutions, that bind 
people together in groups like the family, the clan, and the 
nation. 

Accordingly, the command which is translated, "Let 
justice roll down like waters," means, in other words, "Let 
social arrangements be just. Let the government uphold the 
good laws and institutions of the forefathers." It is, indeed, 
a matter of abundant evidence that the Bible is very largely 
concerned with questions that pertain to the organization of 
the community, and which therefore stand outside the limits 
of personal and private affairs. 

It is clear that earlier generations neglected a large and vital 
aspect of the Bible and its religion. We cannot pause here to 
discuss the reason for this fact. The shifting of attention 
from the individual to the social aspect of religion is ably 
described in the following words : 

Unquestionably the general conception entertained among our 
New England progenitors in the religious life was that of Christianity 
as an agency for individual rescue and salvation; and of the Church 
as the divinely appointed place of ingathering for souls brought home 
from a lost and ruined world. 

But just as plainly there has more recently risen in many minds 
the conception of Christianity as the savior of society, and of the 

'In this passage, En-mishpat means "Fountain of justice," or "Fountain of 
judgment." 



6 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

Church as one instrumentality among others in an enterprise for the 
general redemption of humanity. The thought ranges over a wide 
scale of development in different entertainers of the comparatively 
new conception. There are those who, while believing that the Gospel's 
hope lies in the regeneration of individual souls, recognize, nevertheless, 
the mighty influence of circumstances and environment in making this 

individual redemption more or less probable To this end, 

they rejoice in whatever improves the physical and social conditions 

of the community Others, who have travelled farther in this 

direction, seem to fasten about all hope for the Gospel's greater progress 
on a preliminary better adjustment of society; on better relationships 
between capital and labor; on a more equal division of property; on 
improved habits of living and increased faciHties for education, holidays, 

and enjoyment There is, as has been said, a considerable range 

of diversity in these positions. But the conception of the relationship 
of the Gospel to society, hitherto insufficiently recognized, has unques- 
tionably got a hold on men's minds, and to some extent has affected and 
modified the character of preaching in almost all pulpits.^ 

The change of emphasis thus described is due, primarily, 
not to intellectual or spiritual or theoretical causes, but to the 
increasing pressure of the social problem. And since the 
religion of the Bible has the social character just noted, the 
social awakening of the church brings it into a new attitude 
with reference to the Bible. The conditions of religious life 
and thought are now in process of rapid change; and there is 
growing interest in Bible-study from the ethical and social 
standpoints. The new view of the Bible, which prevails at 
all the great centers of learning, is in harmony with the present 
social awakening in the religious world; whereas the older, 
traditional view of the Bible agrees equally with the former, 
one-sided emphasis upon individualism. It is a mistake to 
suppose that the new scholarship is a mere unsanctified cam- 
paign to discredit the Bible by pointing out where one passage 
fails to agree with another. 

The negative side of the new scholarship is merely that 

^Walker, Religious Life of New England (Boston, 1897), pp. 180-82. 



INTRODUCTION 7 

which always goes along with a period of change; but on its 
positive and constructive side, it is working out a body of 
doctrine which gives admirable expression to the practical 
interests and strivings of the present age. We stand at the 
confluence of two great movements — the social awakening and 
the modern scientific interpretation of the Bible. These move- 
ments appear to be foreign to each other; yet they have a 
logical relation and meaning which will come into view as our 
study proceeds. 

Bible religion identifies God with the principle of righteous- 
ness. — It is clear that whether we approach the Bible religion 
from the social or from the individual point of view, it connects 
God with the demands of morality. The supreme, controlling 
purpose of the Bible is very simple and practical. For it 
revolves around the purpose and plan of redemption, or salva- 
tion, from evil. The individual is to be redeemed from his 
own sin, while the world is to be redeemed from injustice. 

Any interpretation of the Bible that fails to put heavy 
stress upon the moral aspect of its religion is bound to be 
one-sided and insufi&cient. The Bible is pre-eminently ethical. 
It does not make the slightest effort to "prove" the existence 
of God. It takes God for granted. Nowhere in the Bible is 
there to be found a scientific or philosophical argument for the 
existence of God. Nowhere in the Bible do we find the means 
of demonstrating the fact of a future life beyond the grave. 
The Bible makes God and immortality the subjects of faith; 
but it makes public and private righteousness matters of prac- 
tice. Therefore the Bible is a practical book; and its religion 
is a practical religion. 

Bible religion presents God as the Leading Actor in a divine 
drama of redemption. — "Men shall speak of the might of thy 
terrible acts" (Ps. 145:6). Not only does the Bible identify 
God with the principle of morality; but it goes farther than 
this. The distinction of the Bible is not to be found in the 



8 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

mere identification of God with the principle of righteousness. 
The one great, outstanding pecuHarity of the Bible and its 
religion is to be found in the presentation of God as the Lead- 
ing Actor of a long story, or drama, in which mankind is 
redeemed from evil. Many of the gods of antiquity were 
believed by their worshipers to be patrons of righteousness. 
Yet none of the religions of the ancient world, except that of 
the Bible, have survived in modern civilization. 

It is here that the essential feature of the Bible rehgion 
is found. This religion has made its triumphant way in the 
world, not upon the basis of the creatorhood of God, or the 
doctrine of monotheism, or any other abstract notion whatso- 
ever. It has gone from victory to victory on the basis of the 
moral saviorhood of God, and nothing else. All other ideas 
about God that we find in the Bible are present in other ancient 
religions and Bibles. But no other ancient religion brings 
before us the picture of a god as the leading figure in a long, 
consistent drama, or story, in which the central theme is the 
redemption of the human race from evil. Herein the Bible 
stands alone in sohtary and unapproachable majesty amid the 
literature of the ancient world. Herein the religion of the 
Hebrew nation has no parallel among the cults of antiquity. 
Everything but this feature (and it is indeed a "feature") is 
present in the so-caUed "heathen" religions. Thus the 
inaugural prayer of Nebuchadrezzar, addressed to the god 
Marduk, is full of sentiments that are found in the Hebrew 
Bible: 

O Eternal Ruler! Lord of the Universe! Grant that the name of 
the king whom thou lovest, whose name thou hast mentioned, may 
flourish as seems good to thee. Guide him on the right path. I am 
the ruler who obeys thee, the creation of thy hand. It is thou who hast 
created me, and thou hast entrusted to me sovereignty over mankind. 
According to thy mercy, O lord, which thou bestowest upon all, cause 
me to love thy supreme rule. Implant the fear of thy divinity in my 



INTRODUCTION 9 

heart. Grant to me whatsoever may seem good before thee, since it 
is thou that dost control my Hfe.^ 

As Jastrow observes, "one cannot fail to be struck by the 
high sense of the importance of his station with which the 
king is inspired. Sovereignty is not a right that he can claim — 
it is a trust granted to him by Marduk. He holds his great 
office not for purposes of self-glorification, but for the benefit 
of his subjects. In profound humility he confesses that what 
he has he owes entirely to Marduk. He asks to be guided so 
that he may follow the path of righteousness. Neither riches 
nor power constitute his ambition, but to have the fear of his 
lord in his heart." This example is one of many that occur 
all through ancient civilization. We find another instance in 
a remarkable Egyptian hymn to the god Aton: 

How manifold are all thy works! They are hidden from before us, O 
thou sole god, whose powers no other possesseth. Thou didst create the 
earth according to thy desire. While thou wast alone: Men, all cattle 
large and small, all that are upon the earth, that go about upon their 
feet; all that are on high, that fly with their wings. The coimtries of 
Syria and Nubia, the land of Egypt; thou settest every man in his place, 
thou supphest their necessities. Every one has his possessions, and his 
days are reckoned. Their tongues are divers in speech, their forms like- 
wise and their skins, for thou divider, hast divided the peoples.* 

These illustrations prove that in the bare ideas of crea- 
tive power, of righteousness, and of sovereignty, we find 
nothing peculiar to the God of the Bible. It has often been 
said that while the other nations of antiquity worshiped 
"false" gods, the Hebrew nation served the "true" God, and 
that therefore the Hebrew religion has lived while the others 
have died. But this theory of the case does not fit the situa- 
tion that unrolls before us in the history of the Hebrews. For 
the Bible religion puts the moral saviorhood of God in the 

' Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), pp. 296-99. Cf. 
Goodspeed, History of the Babylonians and Assyrians (New York, 1906), p. 348. 
^ Breasted, History of Egypt (New York, 1905), pp. 373, 374- 



lo SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

foreground, and focuses our attention upon that; while the 
other attributes of the divine nature are, so to speak, inci- 
dental and secondary. It is no derogation of the Bible that 
we find the ethical impulse widely present in the non-Hebrew 
religions. It is rather to the credit of humanity that the 
Hebrews had no monopoly of the moral principle; while the 
glory of the Bible resides in just this fact, that it brings God 
into peculiar, dramatic connection with the moral strivings 
that are common to all mankind. It is not for what God is 
in the abstract that men worship him in connection with the 
Bible religion, but for what he does in the promotion of justice 
and righteousness. If men worshiped him simply for his 
"attributes," that would be to put religion upon a purely 
intellectual basis; and no religion can long survive on such a 
foundation. The Bible religion makes its way into the lives 
of men by its appeal to the feelings, and not by arguments 
addressed to the intellect.^ 

The religion of the Redeeming God is common to the Old 
and New Testaments. — In its Old Testament form, the religion 
of redemption was kept alive by Jewish patriotism and race- 
pride. It was interpreted to the Jewish people through the 
medium of their national interests. But the same considera- 
tion that made this religion vital and concrete to a person of 
Jewish blood, made it unreal and far away to the gentile 
world. In the eyes of outsiders, the identification of God with 
morality was a philosophical abstraction, without life or 
meaning. The gentile could not throw aside his race, and 
become a Jew, any more than one species of animal can trans- 
form itself into another. Thus the Old Testament form of 

'Witness the downfall of the "New England theology," which obscured the 
Bible religion with as much rationaUsm as was ever found in the anti-religious thinkers. 
See Foster, Genetic History of the New England Theology (Chicago, 1907). As Profes- 
sor W. N. Clarke well says, "Theology must discuss God in metaphysical light, 
but it is important to know that not in such discussing did the Christian doctrine 
of God originate." — The Christian Doctrine of God (New York, 1909), p. 23. 



INTRODUCTION ii 

Bible religion was confined within the limits of nationality and 
race. A great social barrier stood between Judaism and the 
outside world. 

In a later part of our study we shall consider the sociological 
aspects of the relation between Judaism and Christianity. 
Here we need to do little more than emphasize that the religion 
of the Redeeming God is common to the Old and New Testa- 
ments, To deny this, would be to cut the ground from under 
the feet of Christianity. The New Testament signifies not so 
much a wholly new religion as a reinterpretation of religion in 
such a way as to give its terms a deeper and richer meaning. 
The prophets of the Old Testament gave their message in 
"divers portions and divers ways." But the social barrier 
between Judaism and the gentile world ("the middle wall of 
partition") was at last broken down by the work of Jesus and 
the preaching of Paul. The religion of redemption did not 
begin to spread abroad in the world until the Old Testament 
evolution was brought to a focus, or condensed, in the life of 
Jesus, who incarnated the redemptive idea in his own person. 
These facts may be spoken of here by way of preliminary; 
but a fuller study along the indicated line of approach may not 
be made until we have considered the sociological presupposi- 
tions of the general problem. 

Modern scientific study of the Bible comes to a focus on 
the moral character of Bible religion. — Since the Bible puts 
the principle of righteousness into the foreground, all Bible- 
study necessarily gravitates around this fact and becomes 
adjusted to it. However much the new, scientific school of 
Bible interpretation may seem to be dealing with matters of 
another kind, its fundamental preoccupation is with the great 
moral problem of history. The chief reason why the new 
scholarship has been spoken against in some quarters is because 
it has not been understood. 

Those who condemn the new view are generally beside the 



12 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

main issues. A case in point is that of Professor James Orr, 
whose recent widely heralded book, The Problem of the Old 
Testament, treats the modern discussion about the Bible as 
a war between " supernaturalism " and "naturalism." But 
this is to put the whole subject on a purely metaphysical 
plane. For nobody has ever yet drawn the line between 
these terms; and there appears to be no prospect that 
anybody ever will. Professor Orr would be closer to the 
issues if he perceived that the new method of Bible interpre- 
tation can be neither "naturalistic" nor "supernaturalistic," 
but simply scientific.^ 

How did the Bible religion come into the world? — This is 
the real issue at the heart of modern scientific Bible-study. 
Until we learn to look squarely at this question, we shall not 
make much progress in further understanding of the Bible. 
The older school, of course, finds no problem here. The ready 
answer of Professor Orr and the traditionalists is, that the 
religion of the Bible came into this world, and entered the 
stream of human history, by "the will of God." We admit 
that this answer is good and sufi&cient from the standpoints of 
theology and religious faith; but it explains nothing from the 
standpoint of science. On the other hand, the modern school 
tells us that the religion of the Bible came into the world 
through "a process of evolution." Thus, Kuenen writes, "It 
is the supposition of a natural development alone which 
accounts for all the phenomena."^ But this, again, is really 
no scientific explanation, because the terms "development" 

^ See Orr, Problem of the Old Testament (New York, 1906), chap, i and passim. 
Also, his Bible tinder Trial (New York, 1907), passim. An older, but in some respects 
more satisfactory, treatment of the question is that of Robertson, The Early Religion 
of Israel (New York, 1892). See also Green, Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch (New 
York, 1895), pp. 157, 164, 165, 177. Professor Orr's work on the Old Testament is 
considered by the present writer in the American Journal of Theology (April, 1908), 
pp. 241-49. 

^Kuenen, Prophets and Prophecy in Israel (London, 1877), p. 585; Religion of 
Israel (London, 1874), I, 11. 



% 



INTRODUCTION 13 

and "evolution" are indefinite, and may be made to cover as 
much dogmatism as the phrase "the will of God." 

The problem before scientific students of the Bible is to 
find out and state the conditions under which this great but 
simple religion became the property of mankind. The best 
point of approach to this problem is afforded by the dramatic 
structure of the Bible. Explain the rise of the story of redemp- 
tion from evil, and you "explain" the Bible, so far as it lends 
itself to scientific treatment. It should be emphasized in this 
connection that scientific research merely undertakes to dis- 
cover facts, and to find out the relations between facts. It 
seeks to explain one fact in terms of some simpler fact. But 
it does not profess to turn facts inside out and explain them in 
a metaphysical, or absolute, sense. In other words, even if a 
given collection of facts be explained from the scientific point 
of view, the facts themselves, in last analysis, will still have 
a quality of mystery which eludes the scientific investigator. 
Many religious people have been alarmed by scientific discus- 
sion because they have not realized the limitations of science. 
On the other hand, many scientific investigators in the past 
have proceeded as if they were explaining the metaphysical 
essence of the universe when they were merely setting facts 
in order. But we have now entered a stage of intellectual 
progress in which the shortsightedness on both sides is being 
corrected by a wider vision. 

Scientific study of the Bible carries us into the domain of 
sociology. — ^We have seen that the Bible raises the subject of 
social institutions by its emphasis upon "justice," or "mishpat." 
As a matter of fact all the great moral struggles and questions 
in human history have derived their controlling impulses from 
social relationships. And since moral questions have this col- 
lective, or social, character, it follows that the Bible (being 
a moral fact above everything else) lends itself to sociological 
treatment. But what do we mean by the term "sociology" ? 



14 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

Sociology fixes attention upon the "social group," — ^We are 
not usually conscious of society as a fact in our lives. We 
go through the round of daily duties and experiences; and all 
the time we think of life in terms of private, personal, indi- 
vidual concerns. We do not deny that we belong to the nation, 
the state, the county, the city, or the village; but we accept 
the fact of social organization without fully realizing how it 
shapes and constrains our private lives. We concede readily 
enough that people fall into social groups; but then we ask 
"What of it ?" We take society for granted, and then act as 
if we are entitled to ignore it, just as we ignore the air we 
breathe. The fact is, we are so thoroughly social that we dis- 
count the existence of society. We conform to social standards 
without pausing to estimate the full meaning of the standards 
themselves; and the moment we take the social mechanism, 
or group, as a definite object of attention, we at once feel that 
we are moving outside the common lines of thought. ''The 
idea of the group as a means of interpretation," writes Presi- 
dent George E. Vincent, "is emerging more clearly. Society 
is too vague and abstract a concept. It is useful for symbolic 
purposes and for generalized description, but to have any 
vividness of meaning it must be translated into more concrete 
terms. "^ Thus it is that we find sociologists today shaping 
their discussions less in terms of "society" and more in terms 
of "groups." 

A good illustration of the group idea from a negative stand- 
point is found in the general disposition of Greek history. The 
Greeks never succeeded in forming a national social organiza- 
tion. Consequently, their history lacks the dramatic interest 
attaching to the fact of unity. The case is well stated by 
Professor Bury, as follows (italics ours) : 

To write the history of Greece at almost any period without dissipat- 
ing the interest is a task of immense difficulty, as any one knows who 

^American Journal of Sociology, January, 191 1, p. 469. 



INTRODUCTION 15 

has tried, because there is no constant unity or fixed center to which 
the actions and aims of the numerous states can be subordinated or 
related. Even in the case of the Persian invasion, one of the few occa- 
sions on which most of the Greek cities were affected by a common 
interest, though acting in various ways and from various motives, it 
faciUtated the task of the narrator to polarize the events of the cam- 
paigns by following the camp of the invader and describing them as a 
part of Persian history, though with Hellenic sympathy.^ 

In other words, the Greeks were never organized into a 
single social group, as the Romans or the Hebrews were. 
Consequently, it is more difficult to envisage Greek history 
than it is to see the outlines of Roman or Hebrew history. 
The original social mechanism of the ancient Greeks consisted 
of independent clan groups whose derivation went back to the 
nomadic period, and whose development worked out in the 
construction of small " city-states," such as Athens and Sparta. 
But these local groups never achieved any real, national unity. 

Now, it is in relation to this "group idea" that our socio- 
logical study of the Bible takes form. The entire modern 
discussion and excitement about the Bible comes to an issue 
around the following simple question : How did the social group 
known as "the Hebrew nation'^ come into existence? In search- 
ing for the answer to this question we unexpectedly get light 
by the way upon the central problem of the Bible. We shall 
see that the origin of Bible religion can be treated to best effect 
in terms of sociology. This method of approach to the Bible 
is a logical application of modern results in historical and social 
science; and it opens before us the chapters of an intensely 
absorbing story. 

We are about to enter a strange land. Like all new terri- 
tory, it is a region full of surprises and paradoxes. The 
exploration of it is not only interesting, but rewarding in ways 
of which one little dreams when setting out on the journey. 
And when at last we come back to modern civilization, we 

' Bury, The Ancient Greek Historians (New York, 1909), pp. 22, 23. 



i6 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

shall have learned that while the Bible seems to be only an 
ancient book, it is really fnU of modern interest. We shall 
find that Bible-study is no mere delving into the dust of an- 
tiquity, but the cultivation of living questions of human Hfe. 
As the student "observes the evolution of poHtical and social 
life in Bible times and sees the consequent evolution of moral 
and religious ideals, it becomes perfectly natural for him to 
employ in the attempt to understand the life of his own day 
and generation those very principles which have proved to be 
fruitful in the understanding of the Bible. He is thus pre- 
pared in spirit to make a positive and efficient use of the help 
which social science and history furnish in the analysis and 
solution of our own moral problems.'" 

^ Editorial, Biblical World (Chicago), October, 1909. 



CHAPTER II 
THE ORIGIN OF THE HEBREW NATION 

How did the social group known as "the Hebrew nation" 
come into existence? — This question resolves the study of 
the Bible into sociological terms. The subject, of course, 
lends itself to other forms of expression; but, for present 
purposes, the Bible is a matter of sociology. We want to 
know, if possible, just how the social mechanism called "the 
Hebrew nation" originated. Two answers to this question 
have been given; and the contrast between them produces 
a very deep impression. 

The traditional view. — ^According to the more familiar view, 
the nation consisted of twelve tribes that were suddenly 
welded into a mighty social organism at Mount Sinai, in the 
desert of Arabia. The father of these clans, or tribes, was 
an Aramean patriarch, or sheikh, known as "Jacob-Israel."^ 
The nation which was here created was given a very elaborate, 
written constitution. According to this constitution, the 
people as a whole were to conduct religious services at one 
central meeting house, or church building. This was called 
"The Tent of Meeting," and was otherwise known as "The 
Tabernacle of Yahweh."^ It was a portable sanctuary, to 
be carried about in the desert. It contained the one altar 
where sacrifices might legally be offered. It was the one 
church building where the services of religion might proceed. 
The Tent of Meeting was a virtual proclamation that here, 
in the wilderness of Arabia, a new social group had come 
into existence. The desert sanctuary was thus the central 

'"A wandering Aramean was my father" (Deut. 26:5). See Am. Revised, 
margin. The Hebrew is "Aramean," not "Syrian." 

"See footnote in "Prefatory" (p. xiii) for discussion of the name "Yahweh." 

17 



i8 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

symbol of the nation's political integrity. It was the sign 
that the twelve tribes no longer existed separately, but were 
merged into a single corporation. A good point of departure 
for sociological study of the Bible is, therefore, the law of the 
central sanctuary as recorded in the Book of Deuteronomy. 
The law reads as follows (italics ours) : 

When ye go over the Jordan, and dwell in the land which Yahweh 
your god causeth you to inherit, and he giveth you rest from all your 
enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety; then it shall come to 
pass that to the place which Yahweh your god shall choose to cause his 
name to dwell there, thither shall ye bring all that I command you — 
your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave 
offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which ye vow unto 

Yahweh Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offerings 

in every place that thou seest; but in the place which Yahweh shall choose 
in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, and there 
thou shalt do all that I command thee (Deut. 12:10-14). 

Leaving the matter of the one, central sanctuary for a 
moment, we turn to another feature of the traditional view. 
According to the Book of Joshua, the Hebrew nation crossed 
the River Jordan and threw its great, united army upon the 
Amorites, the inhabitants of Canaan, completely sweeping 
them away. This development is chiefly set forth by the 
Book of Joshua, in which various passages detail the situation 
as follows (italics ours) : 

Joshua smote all the land, the hill-country, and the south, and the 
lowland, and the slopes, and all their kings. He left none remaining; 
and he utterly destroyed all that breathed, as Yahweh, the god of Israel, 
commanded (Josh. 10:40). 

So Joshua took all that land, the hill-country, and all the south, 
and all the land of Goshen, and the lowland, and the Arabah, and the 
hill-country of Israel, and the lowland of the same; from Mount Halak, 
that goeth up to Seir, even unto Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon 
under Mount Hermon. And all their kings he took and smote them, and 
put them to death. Joshua made war a long time with all those kings. 
There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save 



ORIGIN OF THE HEBREW NATION 19 

the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon. They took all in battle 

So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that Yahweh spake 
unto Moses. And Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel, accord- 
ing to their divisions by their tribes^ And the land had rest from war 
(Josh. 11:16-19, 23). 

So Yahweh gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give 
unto their fathers. And they possessed it and dwelt therein. And 
Yahweh gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto 
their fathers. And there stood not a man of all their enemies before them 
.... (Josh. 21:43-44). 

Thus saith Yahweh .... I brought you into the land of the 
Amorites, that dwelt beyond the Jordan; and they fought with you. 
.... And ye possessed their land; and I extirpated them from before 
you (Josh. 24:2, 8). 

And the people answered and said .... Yahweh drove out from 
before us all the peoples, even the Amorites that dwelt in the land 
(Josh. 24:16, 18). 

The next event that we read about after the conquest is 
the setting up of the one, legal place of worship, according to 
Deuteronomy, chap. 12 {supra, p. 18), This was accomplished, 
as we are told by the Book of Joshua, at a place called "Shi- 
loh," in the hill-country of Ephraim. "And the whole con- 
gregation of the children of Israel assembled themselves 
together at Shiloh, and set up the Tent of Meeting there. And 
the land was subdued before them" (Josh. 18:1; cf. 22:4). 

In order to emphasize the legitimacy and singleness of 
the altar at Shiloh, an interesting narrative is given in the 
Book of Joshua concerning a great altar named Edh (witness), 
which was built by the tribes that remained east of Jordan. 
This excited the wrath of the remainder of the nation, which 
rose against them to war. But before proceeding to punish 
their brethren for this great crime, the assembled congregation 
of Israel sent word, asking the criminals to give an account 
of themselves. The reply of these tribes was, that the altar 
was not intended for sacrifice and worship, but that it stood 
as a mute witness to the fact that Yahweh was the god of 



20 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

IsraeL "And the thing pleased the children of Israel . . . . ; 
and the children of Israel spake no more of going up against 
them to war" (Josh. 22:33). 

The leading ideas around which the traditional view of the 
origin of the Hebrew nation revolves are, therefore, these: (i) 
the direct issue of the nation from the patriarch Jacob-Israel; 
(2) the sudden formation of the national group out of the previ- 
ously unorganized tribes in the desert of Arabia; (3) the Tent 
of Meeting as the symbol of national unity ; (4) the annihilation 
of the Amorites, the previous inhabitants of Canaan; (5) the 
establishment of the Tent of Meeting at Shiloh as a reassertion 
of the national integrity and as the sole place of worship. 

The view thus outlined is presented by the first six books 
of the Bible, namely. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, 
Deuteronomy, and Joshua. This collection is distinguished 
by peculiarities of style and idea which mark it off clearly 
from the writings that follow it; so that biblical scholars 
do not speak of "the Pentateuch" (or five-book collection) 
so much as formerly, but of "the Hexateuch" (or six-book 
collection). Although the Hexateuch begins with a brief 
account of the creation of the world and the origin of races, 
its opening chapters are merely a preface leading to the main 
theme; and the entire plan of the Hexateuch, from Genesis 
through Joshua, revolves around the rise and early history 
of the Hebrew nation. 

It has been pointed out that the view of Hebrew history 
found in the six opening books of the Bible is in startling 
contrast with that found in the books immediately following — 
Judges, Samuel, and Kings. The differences between the two 
accounts are great; and the discovery of them has precipi- 
tated the modern scientific investigation of the Bible. 

The modern view. — In contrast with the Hexateuch, the 
Book of Judges presents materials for a view of Hebrew 
history differing greatly from the one just summarized. For 



ORIGIN OF THE HEBREW NATION 2i 

this book treats the Israelite invasion of Canaan as taking 
place, not during the lifetime of Joshua and under his leader- 
ship, hut after his death. To this effect we read, "And it 
came to pass, after the death of Joshua, that the children of 
Israel asked of Yahweh, saying, Who shall go up for us first 
against the Canaanites, to fight against them?" (Judg. i:i; 
italics ours). The passages reproduced below bear directly 
upon the situation. We quote the opening verse of Judges 
again by way of emphasis (italics ours) : 

And it came to pass, after the death of Joshua, that the children 
of Israel asked of Yahweh, saying, Who shall go up for us first against 
the Canaanites to fight against them ? And Yahweh said, Judah shall 
go up.* .... And Yahweh was with Judah, and he drove out the in- 
habitants of the hill-country; for he could not drive out the inhabitants 

of the valley, because they had chariots of iron And Manasseh 

did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shean and its villages, nor of 
Taanach and its villages, nor the inhabitants of Dor and its villages, 
nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and its villages, nor the inhabitants of 
Megiddo and its villages; but the Canaanites would dwell in that 

land And Ephraim drove not out the Canaanites that dwelt in 

Gezer; but the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them. Zebulun 
drove not out the inhabitants of Kitron, nor the inhabitants of Nahalol; 

but the Canaanites dwelt among them Asher drove not out 

the inhabitants of Acco, nor the inhabitants of Sidon, nor of Ahlab 
nor of Achzib, nor of Helbah, nor of Aphik, nor of Rehob; but the Asher- 
ites dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land ; for they did 
not drive them out, .... NaphtaU drove not out the inhabitants of 
Beth-shemesh, nor the inhabitants of Beth-anath; but he dwelt among 

the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land Now the Amorites 

forced the children of Dan into the hill-country; for they would not suffer 
them to come down into the valley (Judg. i : i, 2, 19, 27, 29-34).' 

' We shall see later in our study, from an examination of Bible evidence, that 
the expressions, "asked of Yahweh," "inquired of Yahweh," and "sought the face of 
Yahweh," refer to the casting of lots, "Urim and Thummim," before an image called 
"the ephod." The statement, "Yahweh said, Judah shall go up," means, not that 
a voice was heard, but that the lot came out for the clan of Judah. This matter will 
be taken up in Part II. 

^ Amorite and Canaanite are alternative Old Testament terms for the previous 
inhabitants of Canaan, some passages using one and some the other. For various 
reasons, we shall use "Amorite." 



22 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

Beginning with the passages reproduced above, the books 
of Judges, Samuel, and Kings picture the case very differently 
from the Hexateuch. In the first place, there is no national 
organization and no commander-in-chief at the time the 
clans come into Canaan from the desert of Arabia. Instead 
of a single imposing, united army, we see independent clan 
groups. Each clan acquires a foothold in the hill-country; 
while, at the same time, the earlier inhabitants, instead of 
being annihilated, remain in possession of a long list of waUed 
cities, most of which, together with adjacent villages and 
fields, are in the lowlands. 

Not only do these items of difference emerge at once; but 
as we read on, we nowhere discover the state of things which 
the Hexateuch leads us to expect. Nowhere do we find a 
trace of the "one valid, central sanctuary." Instead of this 
we find sanctuaries widely scattered here and there all through 
the hill-country. These places of worship are independent 
of each other; and they are identified with the separate 
clans which took possession of the hUl-country at the time 
of the invasion. To be sure, we find a place of worship at 
Shiloh; but this is only one of the many sanctuaries to which 
the masses of the people and the leading men resort habitually 
for the purpose of offering sacrifice to Yahweh. These vil- 
lage churches (for such they may be called) are to be found 
at such places as Bethel, Mizpah, Ramah, Gilgal, Bethlehem, 
Hebron, Dan, Gibeon, Shiloh, Nob, Mount of Ohves, etc.^ 
The local sanctuaries reappear in Kings under the name of 
bamoth, or "high places"; and about five hundred years after 
the invasion, an attempt is made to abolish them, so that the 
religious devotion of the people may be centered upon the 
temple erected at Jerusalem by Solomon. This attempt is 

'See Judg. 6:24; ii:ii; 17:5,13; 18:30; 20:26; 21:2-4,5,8; I Sam. 7:5, 
6,9,17; 9:12,13,14; 10:8; 11:14,15; 16:5; 20:6,29; 21:1,2,3,6,7,9; II Sam. 
iS:7~9, 12, 30, 32; I Kings 3:4; 8:1; and the many notices of the bamoth, or "high 
places," in I and II Kings. 



ORIGIN OF THE HEBREW NATION 23 

made in connection with a strange writing brought forward 
from the temple by a priest. But the experiment fails for 
lack of popular support; and the people soon return to the 
ancient village churches. 

Everything goes to show that the books of Judges, Samuel, 
and Kings, although they stand after the Hexateuch in our 
present arrangement of the Bible, were compiled before the 
Hexateuch was written, and that they present material for 
a more trustworthy and reasonable view of Hebrew history 
than do the first six books of Scripture. Their testimony 
agrees with what scientific research has discovered about the 
origin of other ancient nations outside the limits of Hebrew 
history, and also with what has been learned about clan life 
among the less advanced races at the present day. We 
shall therefore temporarily set the Hexateuch aside, reverting 
to it later in our study. The fact of its disagreement with 
the books following it neither deprives it of all value as a 
historical witness nor invalidates it as an item in the wonder- 
ful process by which the religion of the Bible came into the 
world. But of this, more in due course. Our immediate 
concern is with the modern view of Hebrew history as that 
view is formulated in dependence upon Bible sources outside 
the Hexateuch. The modern answer to the question about 
the origin of the Hebrew nation may be stated briefly, in 
sociological terms, as follows: 

The social group known as "the Hebrew nation^' came 
slowly into existence, in the land of Canaan, at the point of 
junction between two previously hostile races, the Israelites and 
the Amorites. 

By planting ourselves firmly upon the group idea, and exam- 
ining the Bible from this point of approach, we begin to find 
light upon many Bible facts and problems that are otherwise 
enshrouded in darkness. There are some highly important 
and central aspects of the Scripture and of Hebrew history 



24 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

that cannot be thought through clearly without reference to 
the idea of the social mechanism. The modem view of the 
Hebrew nation is, that it could not possibly have originated 
in the Arabian desert, as described in the Hexateuch, but 
that its characteristic form is due to the gradual fusion of two 
races which were at first hostile to each other.^ 

^ The modern view of Hebrew history is corroborated by certain passages found 
here and there in the Hexateuch itself (Deut. 7:22; Josh. 13:1-6, 13; 15:63; 16:10; 
17:11-13; 23:4, 5, 12, 13, etc.). These inconspicuous verses and sentences do not 
agree with the central standpoint of the Hexateuch, But they are in harmony with 
Judges and Samuel, and evidently come from the same ancient docmnents that con- 
stitute the body of those works. For another interesting study of the two views, 
read Ps. 44: 1-3, and then Ps. 106:34-40. We shall take up the interesting subject of 
the making of the Old Testament in Part II. 



1 



CHAPTER III 
PLAN OF THE PRESENT STUDY 

At the present time, any new book dealing with the problem 
of the Bible is likely to come into the hands of an intelligent 
and growing class of persons whose needs and interests ought 
to be borne carefully in mind by any author who enters this 
field. Large nimibers of laymen are today in revolt against 
many of the older statements of doctrine. Such persons are 
in possession of normal intelligence and mental competence. 
But for various good and sufficient reasons, it has not yet 
come in their way to understand what has already been done 
by scholarship to meet their difficulties. They cannot be 
moved by the mere word of "authority" (the world is fast 
emerging from that stage); and they can be influenced only 
through an appeal to their intelligence and the discipline 
of their mental powers along new lines of thought. The 
professional reader may be presumed to be able to take care 
of himself. 

We shall now deal with the presuppositions which underlie 
the foregoing chapters. It may be taken for granted that the 
method thus far pursued has caused the non-professional 
reader to ask certain questions which we may now turn aside 
to consider. The foremost of these questions will have 
related to the making of the Bible. We have seen incidentally 
that the Bible, ui its present form, is not contemporary 
with the events described; and we are now ready to hear 
something about the literary nature of the Bible. The 
reader wiQ also have asked, from time to time, certain ques- 
tions about the social organization and habits of thought 
lying at the basis of Hebrew life and common to the Semitic 

25 



26 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

peoples; and we are therefore now ready to learn something 
about the ancient foundations which existed before the Bible 
religion arose. We want to know more about the civilization 
in which these remarkable events took place. The mile posts 
of our journey are more or less familiar; but the land through 
which we are traveling is a country of strange marvels;' and 
we would pause by the way to investigate some of its aspects 
more closely. These matters we shall take up in the following 
division of our study, Part II, under the title, "Elements of 
the Bible Problem." 

In Part III, entitled, "Development of Bible Religion," we 
shall go systematically into the social process through which 
the religion of the Bible came into existence. The line of 
treatment there to be followed has been suggested in the 
Prefatory. 

In Part IV, "The Spread of Bible Religion," we shall take 
up the sociological phase of the relation between Judaism and 
Christianity, and consider the progress of the gospel of redemp- 
tion through the Roman empire and mediaeval Europe. 

In Part V, "The Bible and Its Religion in the Modern 
World," we shall consider chiefly the social and economic 
aspects of the Reformation, the rise of higher criticism, and 
the reassertion of the social aspect of the Gospel. 

The program thus laid down must be held rigorously 
under control in order to be of the most benefit. Discussions 
of metaphysical and theological problems must be avoided; for 
they have no place in a course of scientific study like the 
present. 

' This expression comes from a private letter to the writer. 



PART II 
ELEMENTS OF THE BIBLE PROBLEM 



FOREWORD TO PART II 

This division of our study is intended chiefly for the layman. 
The treatment here is not entirely, but mainly, sociological. 
The following chapter, for instance, on the "Making of the 
Old Testament," relates to a theme which would appear to 
fall entirely within the scope of literary introduction. But, 
by emphasizing that the Old Testament puts forward a series 
of moral verdicts on a social process already lying in the past, 
we adjust the literary problem within the sociological perspec- 
tive. More obviously sociological are the chapters on "The 
Kinship Institutions," and "The Industrial Institutions"; 
while the chapter on "The Early Religious Institutions" will 
be found to be of substantially the same character. After 
we have canvassed the elements of the situation, we shall be 
ready to consider the development of Bible religion. 



29 



CHAPTER IV 
THE MAKING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 

The Hebrew Bible was compiled from documents much older 
than the Scriptures. — The ruin of ancient Israel was neces- 
sary to the birth of the Old Testament. The Hebrew Bible 
was compiled and published in view of the national downfall. 
Its writings were collected by editors and commentators who 
lived long after the events described. The Old Testament, 
as a whole, has come to us through the hands of writers who 
look back on Hebrew history from a long distance in time. 
The method of these authors, as they themselves indicate, 
was first of all to extract material from ancient books, word 
for word. Several of these ancient sources, far older than the 
Bible itself, are given by name. Thus, we find The Book of 
the Wars of Yahweh quoted in Num. 21:14, i5- This work 
was regarded as an authoritative "source" by the writers 
of the Bible. Of similar nature was The Book of Yashar. 
This is quoted in II Sam. 1:18-27, and in Josh. 10:12,13. 
More frequently referred to are certain writings called respec- 
tively The Book of the Matters Pertaining to the Kings of Israel, 
and The Book of the Matters Pertaining to the Kings of Judah."- 
These authorities are often mentioned (see I Kings 14:19, 29, 
etc.). 

Then there are other facts, of a different nature, pointing 
to the same conclusion, that the Old Testament was put into 
its present form by writers who were not contemporary with 
the events described. For instance: The Book of II Kings 

^ They have these titles in the Hebrew; but they are cited in English Bibles as 
the books of the "chronicles" of the kings of Israel and Judah. They are not the 
books of I and II Chronicles, however; for they are said b}' the writers of Kings to 
contain material which we cannot find in I and II Chronicles. 

30 



THE MAKING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 31 

takes us up to the Babylonian captivity; whence we get the 
suggestion that this book was produced after that event. 
In the same way, the Book of Judges, which deals with a very 
early period of Israelite history, speaks of the "captivity" 
(18:30). Whether this refers to the captivity of Israel in 
the eighth century, or that of Judah in the sLxth — in either 
case, the writer occupies a standpoint many hundreds of years 
removed from the events described in Judges. This is a 
matter of the simplest reasoning. The process by which this 
conclusion is reached is not in any way mysterious. Suppose 
we pick up a history of the settlement of the Pilgrims in 
Massachusetts, in which there occurs a reference to the election 
of Lincoln to the presidency of the United States. From 
this, we at once know that the author of the book must have 
written at least as late as i860, or two hundred and forty 
years after the arrival of the Pilgrims in America. 

Again, take the following passage in Genesis: "And when 
Abraham heard that his brother was taken captive, he led 
forth his trained men, born in his house, and pursued as far 
as Dan" (Gen. 14: 14). If we now turn to the Book of Judges, 
we read that the city of Dan did not receive this name until 
a period long after the Israelite invasion of Canaan, when 
Abraham had been dead many years. It was given this name 
by the clan of the Danites; and we are explicitly told that 
the name of the city "at the first" was Laish (Judg. 18:27- 
29). Why, , then, does not the narrative in Genesis tell us 
that Abraham pursued as far as Laish, the earlier name which 
the city had in the patriarchs' day, instead of saying that he 
pursued as far as Dan? The obvious answer to this is, that 
the writer of Genesis was familiar with the later name of the 
city; and that the Book of Genesis was composed long after 
the Israelite settlement in Canaan. Here again, therefore, 
we find ourselves facing the conclusion that a given book in 
the Bible was written, or edited, by a person or persons not 



32 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

living at the time of the events described. Another equally 
strong piece of evidence regarding the date of Genesis is 
found in the following statements: "And Abram passed 
through the land unto the place of Shechem, unto the oak of 
Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land" (Gen. 
12:6). The writer of Genesis thus occupies the standpoint 
of that late period when the Canaanites, or Amorites, were 
fused with Israel, and lost within the mass of the Hebrew 
nation. In order to give local color to the history of the 
patriarchs, the writer of Genesis thinks it well to say inciden- 
tally that the Canaanites were then in the land. These inter- 
esting items are samples chosen from a large mass of evidence 
accumulated by modern scientific study of the Bible. 

In the age when the Bible was produced, there was no idea 
of literary property. Books were chiefly written on rolls of 
heavy paper; and the owner of a manuscript felt free to 
do as he pleased with it. Writers would copy a manuscript 
upon a new sheet, and intersperse their own comments. They 
would copy out a number of old writings on a new roU, and 
add their own remarks without giving notice to that effect. 
There were no footnotes, or other devices now employed in 
books. All these considerations have to be held constantly 
in mind when we are studying ancient works like the Bible. 

It is now definitely established that the first six books 
of the Bible (the Hexateuch) were produced after the Baby- 
lonian exile by copying passages out of a number of earlier 
documents, and putting these passages together so as to make 
the books in their present form. This method of production, 
instead of being unusual, was very common. We have already 
observed a parallel case in the composition of the Books of 
Kings. Another instance is found in the old Arab historians, 
who constructed their books by wholesale borrowing from 
earlier sources. The writings entering into the Hexateuch 
(Genesis through Joshua) are identified as follows: The 



THE MAKING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ^^ 

earliest sources are two cycles of narratives, or stories, called 
respectively the "Yahweh writings" and the "Elohim writ- 
ings." These appear to have been first composed in Israel 
and Judah after the revolt from the house of David. They 
embody many old songs and traditions coming down from the 
dim past; and they are quite widely distributed throughout 
the Hexateuch. The next writings in point of age are the 
''Deuteronomic," found mostly in the Book of Deuteronomy. 
The very latest elements in the Hexateuch are called the 
"Priestly writings." The meaning of these terms will come 
out more clearly farther along in our study. 

It is not our place to go over the argument by which these 
conclusions are suggested. For that line of study belongs 
to another discipline, the literary and historical investigation 
of the Bible. The scientific sociologist, approaching the 
Bible from the outlook of his own line of work, takes for 
granted the generally established results of literary and 
historical study of the Bible. These results are indispensable 
to any kind of research which aims to set forward the inter- 
pretation of the Bible. The most fundamental form which 
they take is, that the Old Testament was compiled from 
earlier books; and that the writers who did the compiling 
lived at a late period, long after the downfall of the Hebrew 
nation. This is the most general way of stating the case. 
It is a conclusion of modern science, just as definite and certain 
as the established laws and principles of chemistry and physics. 
This, however, is only a preliminary statement which does 
not conduct us into the center of the Bible problem. When 
we have digested and emphasized the fact that the Hebrew 
Bible was actually composed in the way thus indicated, we 
are in a position to advance another step. 

The Old Testament is an ethical work, which pronounces 
moral verdicts on past history. — The moment that we dis- 
cover how the Old Testament was brought together in its 



34 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

present form, at that very moment another question arises. 
The Bible writers admit that they used only a part of the an- 
cient writings at their disposal. They do not quote all the 
material at their command. They quote only portions of the 
ancient books. And they are often in the attitude of saying 
to us, "If you want more information, behold it is to be 
found in such and such books." The question arises now. 
Upon what principle did the Bible writers choose their material 
out of the ancient sources? In short. Why was the Old 
Testament written? 

The answer to this question is, that the Old Testament 
(and ultimately the New Testament) was written to confirm 
the work of the great insurgent prophets who lived before 
the downfall of the nation. The purpose of the Bible is not 
history in the scientific sense, but religious edification. The 
writers through whose labor we get the Bible were men satu- 
rated and inspired by a moral purpose. They made use of 
Hebrew history and tradition just as far as this ancient mate- 
rial served their purpose, and no farther. The controlling aim 
of the Old Testament is to advance the Yahweh religion as 
the worship of the One, righteous God, preached by the great 
prophets before the Exile. To this end, the compilers of the 
Bible brought together a vast mass of material out of old 
books, and interspersed this ancient material with comments 
of their own, pointing out here and there the moral lessons of 
past history, and working all the time in the spirit of the 
great prophets. 

We now find ourselves advancing toward a clear-cut 
idea of the way in which the Bible was composed and the 
purpose for which it was written. The authors of the 
Bible were virtually sitting in judgment on the history of 
the human race in general and their own direct ancestors 
in particular. And now a further interesting truth claims 
our attention. 



THE MAKING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 35 

The editorial point of departure in the making of the Old 
Testament is condemnation of the Hebrews for walking after 
"the iniquity of the Amorite." — The editor who compiled the 
Books of Kings had before him a roll, or sheet, containing 
stories about the prophet Elijah. The twenty-first chapter 
of I Kings gives the story of Elijah, Ahab, and Naboth, which 
is familiar to everybody who reads the Bible. Now, the entire 
chapter (I Kings, chap. 21), with the exception of two verses 
(25 and 26), was copied out of the Elijah stories. The two 
verses in question were introduced by the late editorial writer 
for the purpose of pointing out the moral of the story. The 
chapter would read more smoothly if these two verses were 
omitted, for they break the literary connection of the narrative. 
They are very fittingly placed in parentheses by the English 
and American revised versions; but neither the Hebrew text 
nor the King James translation employs that device. Vss. 
25 and 26 are, in fact, no part of the story; and they simply 
represent the editor's verdict, or sentence of judgment, upon 
the history which he is copying out. The verses in question 
read thus: "But there was none like unto Ahab, who did sell 
himself to do that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, 
whom Jezebel his wife stirred up. And he did very abomi- 
nably in following idols, according to all that the Amorites 
did, whom Yahweh cast out before the children of Israel." 

It is to be observed, in the first place, that the editorial 
sentence of judgment is uttered in view of a comparison 
between the Israelites and the Amorites; and, in the second 
place, that the Amorites are thought to have been "cast 
out" by Yahweh. These considerations, indeed, give us 
the point of departure in the literary construction of the Old 
Testament. While it is true that the Bible stands for justice 
and morality in the abstract, it is nevertheless true that the 
"iniquity of the Amorite" was the concrete factor at work 
in the moral development of the Hebrew nation. Parallel 



36 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

with this is the truth, already emphasized, that while Yahweh 
is opposed to all other gods, he is practically conceived in 
opposition to the Baals of the Amorites. The gods and the 
morals of the earlier inhabitants are thus taken up together 
into the process of Hebrew evolution. 

The proof of this position develops as we go farther into the 
evidence. The patriarch Abraham is told that he himself 
cannot inherit the land of Canaan, "for the iniquity of the 
Amorite is not yet full" (Gen. 15:16). The moral practices 
of the Amorite, then, are the black spot in the Bible writer's 
field of vision. As we move onward in the Hexateuch, the doom 
of the earlier inhabitants draws near : " Defile not ye yourselves 
in any of these things. For in all these the nations are defiled 
which I cast out from before you. And the land is defiled. 
Therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it; and the land 
vomiteth out her inhabitants" (Lev. 18:24, 25). "For the 
wickedness of these nations Yahweh doth drive them out from 
before thee" (Deut. 9:4). The alleged expulsion of the 
Amorites is described in the Book of Joshua, with which the 
Hexateuch ends (cf. supra, Part I, chap. ii). The connection 
of these Hexateuchal passages with the editorial judgment 
upon Ahab in I Kings, chap. 21, is so obvious as hardly to call 
for comment. They all move within the same circle of ideas 
about the early history of Israel. Other passages of like 
import in the Books of Kings are as follows: "The abomina- 
tions of the nations which Yahweh drove out before the chil- 
dren of Israel" (I Kings 14:24). "Now it was so, because 
the children of Israel had sinned against Yahweh their god 
.... and had feared other gods, and walked in the statutes 
of the nations whom Yahweh cast out . . . . , therefore 
Yahweh was very angry with Israel, and removed them out 

of his sight So Israel was carried away out of their 

own land to Assyria unto this day " (II Kings 17:7, 8, 18, 23). 



THE MAKING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 37 

The concluding words, "unto this day," bring before us 
the Bible writer surveying the past. These various quota- 
tions prove beyond a doubt what was the standpoint of the 
men who gave us the Old Testament: They were a long 
distance removed in time from the actual history of the 
Hebrew nation. They do not undertake to construct an 
accurate, or scientific, narrative. They make use of many 
documents and traditions; and they make no account of 
disagreements between these ancient authorities. They, are 
interested in history for the sake of the moral lessons which 
may be drawn from it; and the concrete occasion of their 
moral judgment is "the iniquity of the Amorite." In this 
way the Old Testament was made.^ 

The considerations here brought forward are among the 
"elements" of the Bible problem with which the present 
division of our work deals. 

' "There is no evidence," writes Professor Briggs, "that the Divine Spirit guided 
these historians in their historic investigations so as to keep them from historic errors. 
The Divine Spirit guided them in their religious instruction in the lessons they taught 
from history. But there is no evidence of other guidance." — Briggs, General Intro- 
duction to the Study of Holy Scripture (New York, 1900), p. 566. 



CHAPTER V 
THE ANCIENT SEMITIC PEOPLES 

Israel was one of a number of Semitic peoples. — The nation 
called "Israel," which appears in the foreground of Bible 
history, is one out of many social groups constituting the 
great Semitic race. One of the important facts calling for 
attention in sociological study of the Bible is the racial con- 
nection of Israel with surrounding peoples. The Semites 
are identified with the region lying at the junction of Europe, 
Asia, and Africa. In ancient history this remarkable race 
was distributed over the Arabian peninsula, the valleys of 
the Tigris and Euphrates, the eastern seaboard of the Medi- 
terranean, and the valley of the Nile. These localities con- 
tained populations wholly or partly Semite. The Arabian 
peninsula was the field of the Arabs. The valleys of the 
Tigris and Euphrates were the seats of the Babylonians. 
The Nile valley was the home of the Egyptians. At the east- 
ern end of the Mediterranean, on the coast itself, were the 
Phoenicians. Farther inland were the Canaanites, or Amor- 
ites, the Arameans, or Syrians, the Moabites, Ammonites, 
Edomites, and Israelites. 

All of these peoples have similar characteristics; and their 
languages evidently developed out of an earlier Semitic speech 
whose elements are common to all the peoples of this race. 
It has reniained for modern science to point out broadly the 
racial connections and affiliations of Israel. But the legends 
of the Hexateuch admit the same fact. The ancestors of 
Israel are said to have lived in the region of Babylonia, and 
to have migrated westward into Canaan and Goshen (Gen., 
chaps. II ff.). Israel and the surrounding nations have ties 

38 



THE ANCIENT SEMITIC PEOPLES 39 

of common blood. The entire situation suggests that the 
earlier, prehistoric homeland of the Semitic race was the 
peninsula of Arabia. On this point, Barton writes as follows 
in his work on Semitic evolution: 

The peculiar conditions of life which the Arabian deserts and oases 
have presented for millenniums are the matrix in which the Semitic 

character, as it is known to us, was born The Bedawi are 

always underfed, they suffer constantly from hunger and thirst, and 
their bodies thus weakened fall an easy prey to disease; they range the 
silent desert, almost devoid of life, where the sun is all powerful by day 
and the stars exceedingly brilliant by night. This environment begets 
in them intensity of faith of a certain kind, ferocity, exclusiveness, and 
imagination. These are all Semitic characteristics wherever we find 
the Semites; and there can be Httle doubt but that this is the land in 
which these traits were ingrained in the race.^ 

Comparative study of the institutions pertaining to all the 
Semitic nations has been a factor of large importance in modern 
scientific interpretation of the Bible. We have already made 
some reference to the Semitic neighbors of Israel; and we 
shall have occasion to do so more frequently as our study 
proceeds. We shall now turn to some of the institutions that 
were common to the Semites, and which have to be reckoned 
with in sociological study of the Bible. 

' Barton, Semitic Origins (New York, 1902), p. 28. 



CHAPTER VI 

KINSHIP INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 

The fact of kinship, the tie of blood, was emphasized very 
strongly in ancient society. — The nations of ancient history 
were not composed of individual persons, in the modern 
sense. They were made up of "houses," or families, which 
were organized on the basis of blood relationship. The 
family group takes its origin amid the darkness of prehistoric 
times. It is the foundation stone of savage and barbarian 
society; and it has always been a powerful factor in the life 
of the great historic civilizations. The farther back we go 
in ancient history, the more important the family becomes. 
In fact, ancient society was regarded as an extension of the 
family; and the nation Israel was commonly referred to, 
in terms of kinship, as the "children of Jacob-Israel," or the 
" family of Israel." It is at first rather difficult for the modern 
mind to realize the strength of the kinship idea in ancient 
society. Only with an effort can we grasp the importance of 
the blood bond among races more primitive than ourselves. 
In ancient history, and also among the more backward peoples 
now living on the earth, kinship is the only ground upon 
which a social group can be constructed. It is the central 
tie around which the activities of life revolve. The modern 
civil state puts the tie of blood in a subordinate and incon- 
spicuous place; and it overlays the family idea with an impos- 
ing network of political relations. But in an ancient society 
like Israel, the civil state was impossible and unthinkable. 
The simpler organization of life in those ages thrust the bond 
of blood clearly into the foreground. Not only so; but the 
fact of kinship itself was treated from a standpoint unlike 
that of the present day. 

40 



KINSHIP INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 41 

The family in ancient Israel differed greatly from the modern 
family. — The standard form of the IsraeHte and Semitic 
family was what is now called the "patriarchal." A patri- 
arch is simply a "ruling father." In accordance with this 
idea, the head of an Israelite family group was called in Hebrew 
the haal, ^^3. Where this word occurs in the Old Testa- 
ment, it is variously rendered "master," "owner," "hus- 
band," etc.^ The baal was the legal owner of the household 
group standing in contact with him. He was the proprietor 
of his wife, or wives, children, slaves, cattle, houses, lands, 
etc. The various phases of domestic life in ancient Israel 
were disposed with reference to this principle of subordination. 

The position of the family head is illustrated to good effect 
by the laws of the Book of Exodus. Thus we read: "If an 
ox gore a man or a woman to death, the ox shall surely be 
stoned . . . . , but the haal of the ox shall be quit" (Exod. 
21:28). In translating this passage, the English versions 
render the term by the word "owner." Again, we read: 
"If thou buy a Hebrew slave, six years shall he serve; and 

in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing If he be 

haal of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him" (Exod. 
21:2, 3). The phrase here italicized is rendered by the 
English versions, "If he be married." Another example 
is found in Isaiah, as follows: "The ox knows his owner, 
and the ass the stall of his baaV^ (Isa. 1:3). Thus we see 
that the same Hebrew term indicates proprietorship of a 
wife and ownership of an animal. The word baal, used in 
this way, is not familiar to those who read the Bible only in 
modern translations. But it is well known through trans- 
literation as a noun commonly applied to the local gods of the 
Amorites. These gods were thought of by their worshipers 
as the divine owners, or masters, of the fertile soil of Canaan. 
The term baal is also known, to some extent, as an element 

' We shall discuss the application of this term to the gods later. 



42 



SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 



in "theophoric" proper names, as "Jerub-baal, who is Gid- 
eon" (Judg. 7:1), "Esh-baal" (I Chron. 8:33). Whenever 
it occurs in the Hebrew text merely as a common noun, as in 
the cases quoted above from Isaiah and Exodus, it is not 
transUterated, but is rendered by terms like "owner," or 
''husband." Study of this word is highly instructive regard- 
ing the constitution of kinship groups among the Israelites. 
In view of these considerations, the following well-known 
passage acquires new interest: 

A worthy woman who can find ? For her price is far above rubies. 
The heart of her had trusteth in her; and he shall have no lack of gain. 
She doeth him good and not evil all the days of her life. She seeketh 
wool and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. She is like the 
merchant ships. She bringeth her bread from afar. She riseth also 
while it is yet night, and giveth food to her household, and their portion 
to her maidens. She considereth a field, and buyeth it. With the 
fruit of her hands she buyeth a vineyard. She girdeth her loins with 
strength, and maketh strong her arms. She perceiveth that her mer- 
chandise is profitable. Her lamp goeth not out by night. She layeth 
her hands to the distafif, and her palms hold the spindle (Prov. 31:10- 
19)- 

It is to be observed that the ideal wife, according to this 
passage, can turn her attention to almost any kind of work, 
day and night. Such a woman will not only work by lamp- 
light; she will rise in the dark hours of the morning, prepare 
breakfast, and set the household slaves to their tasks. It 
is to be noticed, however, that the writer distinctly implies 
that such a person is only an ideal. For he asks, Who can 
find such a woman? And then he adds that, even if she 
were found, she would be so valuable that her price would be 
far above that of rubies. 

The mention of price calls up another phase of the subject. 
The Israelite wife was virtually the property of her husband; 
standing almost in a chattel relation to him. A wife was 
obtained by outright purchase, either in money or goods. 



KINSHIP INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 43 

from her father or her male guardian. In the Hebrew lan- 
guage, the price of a woman is called the mohar, "iHb . No 
marriage ceremony, in our sense of the word, was considered 
necessary to legalize the union of man and woman. The 
legalization of marriage was just the payment of the mohar. 
It is from this point of view that the Deuteronomic law 
regulates the seduction of a virgin. The offender shall pay 
the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and take her as his 
wife (Deut. 22:28, 29). A slightly different version of this 
law is given elsewhere, as follows: "If her father utterly 
refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to 
the mohar of virgins" (Exod. 22 : 17). In the view of Hebrew 
law, therefore, outrage of female virtue takes the character 
of a damage to the rights of private property. The mar- 
riageable girl is the property of her father, the baal. 

Under a social system in which the husband is the owner 
of his wife, there is naturally no restriction upon the number 
of wives he may have, except the limits imposed by his eco- 
nomic resources and the available supply of women. Polygamy 
was therefore a factor in the domestic institutions of ancient 
Israel. Accordingly, we find that many Israelites had two 
wives; some, three or four; while kings and rich men had 
still higher numbers. Large establishments, of course, were 
maintained only by the wealthy. The polygamy practiced 
by men like David and Solomon must have been exceptional; 
and in the latter case there is probably some exaggeration in 
the narratives. Plurality of wives must have been quite 
limited among the mass of the people. The case of Elkanah, 
the father of the prophet Samuel, is doubtless more normal 
and representative than that of Solomon: ''Now there was 
a certain man of the hill-country of Ephraim; and his name 
was Elkanah; and he had two wives. The name of the one 
was Hannah; and the name of the other, Peninah" (I Sam. 
1:1, 2). Jacob had two wives, Rachel and Leah (Gen., 



44 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

chap. 29). Lamech had the same number, Adah and Zillah 
(Gen. 4:19). It makes no difference whether Jacob and 
Lamech were actual persons or not. The stories in which 
they appear give an accurate reflection of the social life of 
Israel after the settlement in Canaan. The underlying 
social institutions of the Hexateuch are in agreement with 
those of the Judges-Samuel-Kings narratives. 

When the had, the head of the family, died, his property 
descended to the eldest son. If there were no son, the estate 
went to some other male relative, or to an adopted male heir. 
Inheritance must by all means go down through the male 
line. This principle was absolute. A good example is found 
in the case of Abraham, who declares, "I go childless; and 
he that shall be the possessor of my family is Eliezer of Damas- 
cus" (Gen. 15:2). By reference to the narrative, we find 
that Eliezer is the steward, or chief slave, in the family of 
Abraham. If Abraham die without male issue, the steward, 
a foreigner, is to be his heir. For his wife Sarai cannot 
inherit. If Isaac had not been born, Eliezer would thus 
have been the successor of Abraham. An example of the 
adoption of a trusted slave so that he could inherit is found in 
I Chron. 2:34: "Now Sheshan had no sons, but [he had] 
daughters. And Sheshan had a slave, an Egyptian, whose 
name was Jarha. And Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha 
his slave to wife." By such means the organized life of the 
kinship group was continued under male headship, and the 
family establishment was kept together. ' 

These references to adoption prove that while blood kinship 
was regarded as the fundamental bond of society, the principle 
could not be applied consistently. If the kinship theory 
were strictly followed out, it would have excluded all foreign 

The right of daughters to inherit was not an immemorial custom There 

IS no trace of the existence of such a right in the pre-exilic period; and .... it may 
be reasonably mferred that as late as the end of the seventh century b.c. the right of 
daughters to mherit was still unknown."— Gray, Numbers ("International Critical 
Commentary," New York, 1903), p. 397. 



KINSHIP INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 45 

blood from Israel. But the Israelites were frequently in 
contact with foreigners who came into close relations with 
them; and, as a matter of fact, it appears that the nation 
called "Israel" was itself the product of an ethnic mixture. 
In the first place, it was the result of union between the invad- 
ing clans from the Arabian desert and the earlier Amorite 
inhabitants. As time went on, other outsiders were grafted 
into the social body. Jarha, the Eg3rptian slave, is a case in 
point. King David's grandmother was a Moabite woman of 
the name of Ruth, as indicated in the Book of Ruth (4:17). 
King Ahab married a Phoenician woman from the city of 
Sidon (I Kings 16:31). Ezra's prohibition of marriage with 
foreigners is post-exilic, as are also the corresponding laws 
in the Hexateuch (Ezra 9:1, 2ff.; Exod. 34:15, 16; Deut. 
7:3, 4; Josh. 23:12). In cases where these aliens were 
females, they came in either through purchase, or by capture 
in war, or by way of state-marriage with the kings. Where 
they were of the male sex, they came in either as chattels, or 
as adopted freemen. An outsider thus adopted was known 
as a ger, "•? (in the plural, gerim). The Old Testament has a 
great deal to say about the "stranger" and the "sojourner." 
It is the gerim that are in view. Free foreigners became a 
part of Israelite society by adoption into some native family, 
after which they were treated as blood members of the kin. 

These facts give us an introduction to the Israelite family. 
Practically the same arrangements prevailed throughout 
the Semitic field. Everywhere the social unit was the house, 
or family, called in Hebrew bayith, in'^n . The house, or 
family, was a group connected by ties of blood, real or assumed, 
and living together under the rule of a patriarchal owner, or 
baal. Such a group was known as a beth-ab, or "father's 
house. "^ A family would go to great lengths in order to 

' Beth is what is called the "construct" form of the noun bayith. It is produced 
by a simple change of vowels, according to rule, and means "house of." Thus, the 
name "Beth-lehem" has the meaning "House of bread." "Beth-el" means "House 
of God." 



46 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

avenge the injury or death of anyone connected with it. 
Although the primitive law of blood-vengeance has a harsh 
efifect when viewed from outside the family circle, it is an 
expression of group soHdarity in the earlier stages of social 
evolution; and when regarded from within the kinship group, 
it represents the acme of kmdly feeling. 

Many puzzling Bible facts can be explained from the stand- 
point of the kinship group.— The Israelites may hold foreigners 
in slavery; but they may not rule over their "brethren" 
with rigor (Lev. 25:44-46). The IsraeHtes may not use 
tainted meat as an article of food; but they may give it to 
the stranger who is within their gates, that he may eat it; 
or they may sell it to a foreigner — a puzzling gradation of 
morahty, surely, but perfectly intelligible from the standpoint 
of the primitive social group (Deut. 14:21). Abraham tells 
a he — but to the Egyptians, who were enemies of Israel 
(Gen. 12:13). Jacob cheats — but he cheats Esau, the father 
of the Edomites, who were Israel's foes (Gen. 27:35). And 
while the Israelites admit kinship with their neighbors, the 
origins of these nearby peoples are said to be blotted with 
stains of dishonor. For instance, their enemies the Moabites 
and Ammonites resulted from the incest of Lot, a nephew 
of Abraham, with his own daughters (Gen., chap. 19). Again, 
their enemies the Ishmaehtes are allowed to be children of 
Abraham, but through a slave-woman, Hagar, who belonged to 
Sarai, the wife of Abraham (Gen., chap. 16). Their enemies 
the Edomites were sprung from a grandson of Abraham who 
fooHshly despised the sacred privileges of his birthright, 
which he sold for a mess of pottage (Gen., chap. 25). If 
we take the biblical material frankly as coming, not from 
a people with modern ideas, but from a nation whose 
morals are fixed by the usages of the ancient kinship group, 
we shall have no difficulty with problems that will be 
otherwise obscure. 



KINSHIP INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 47 

Family groups in Israel were organized into larger groups 
for various purposes. — During the period contemplated by 
the Book of Judges, there was a rude but powerful control of 
society based on the organization of these "father's houses" 
into groups known as "clans." In Hebrew, the clan is called 
mishphachah, nnS'JJ'J , As for the nation, or kingdom, it 
had no existence in the "Judges" period, "In those days 
there was no king in Israel" (Judg. 21:25). The people 
were in the clan stage of social evolution at the time of the 
Israelite invasion of Canaan, and for long after. Each clan 
had its own leader, corresponding to the Arabian sheikh of 
the present day. The clan head was a kind of arbitrator 
between the different families composing the association. 
In this character he was known as a "judge," or shophet, 
t:3 "i: . This word connects with the term shaphat, meaning to 
decide, to administer customary justice, or to rule. From the 
same origin is derived the word mishpat, now so familiar to us, 
referring to the "judgment," or "justice" which prevailed 
from time immemorial in the Israelite and other Semitic 
clans. In cases of dispute between families, it was the duty 
of the shophet to hold a court of justice, and decide how the 
clan customs found application to the matter in hand; the 
question being, "What was wont to be done by them of old 
time ? " The judge was not in a position of absolute authority. 
His verdicts were subject to the approval of a council of elders 
who represented all the freemen of the families composing the 
clan. It is this primitive state of things that Isaiah has in 
mind when he says, "I will restore thy judges, as at the first, 
and thy counsellors, as at the beginning" (Isa. 1:26). 

The functions of these men related not only to peace but to 
war. For matters of defense and offense are always of large 
importance in the clan stage of history. War policy was 
decided ultimately by the freemen of the clan. Sometimes 
a number of clans united against a common enemy. A 



48 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

case in point is the co-operation of several Israelite clans 
against a number of desert clans which had likewise united 
against the Israelites and invaded the land: 

Then all the Midianites and the Amalekites and the children of the 
east assembled themselves together; and they passed over, and en- 
camped in the valley of Jezreel. But the spirit of Yahweh came upon 
Gideon; and he blew a trumpet; and [the clan of] Abiezer was gathered 
together after him. And he sent messengers throughout all [the clans 
of] Manasseh; and they also were gathered together after him; and 
he sent messengers unto [the clans of] Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtah; 
and they came up to meet them (Judg. 6:33-35). 

In this case, the clan leader Gideon, by his energy and 
initiative, performed a service of great value to a number of 
independent clan groups. The inevitable result was that he 
acquired prestige beyond the limits of his own clan, Abiezer. 
"Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule thou over us, 
both thou, thy son, and thy son's son also; for thou hast 
saved us out of the hand of Midian" (Judg. 8:22). Such 
men as Gideon, connected with the old family aristocracy, 
were called into prominence by the conditions of the early 
period. Although Gideon did not become king, it was to 
men of his class that the people turned for leadership when 
the time came to unite the clans permanently into a nation. 
The family heads and the clan leaders owed their masterful 
position very largely to the terrific strain imposed upon 
society in the all-round struggle for existence in those early 
and stern ages of the world. The despotic power of the 
ancient Semitic baal, or house father, seems excessive when 
viewed from the standpoint of our gentler modern civiliza- 
tion; but there was great need that the members of these 
kinship associations be disciplined by a strong hand lest they 
be swept out of existence by rival groups. The power of the 
baal was, in fact, a useful "function" of ancient society. 
We have looked at the subject in the present chapter chiefly 
from the standpoint of kinship; and it now becomes neces- 
sary to look at the facts from another angle. 



CHAPTER VII 
INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 

Human slavery was an important element in the social fab- 
ric of ancient Israel. — The very circumstances that gave the 
household baal his position and authority in Israel depressed 
the other members of the family group in various degrees. 
The baals collectively constituted the upper social class — the 
freemen; while the remainder of the population was in the 
lower class. But within the lower class itself there were 
differences of position. The most inferior place of all was 
held by the slave, or bondservant. Slavery, indeed, was not 
a thing in a corner; it was an institution, bound up in the 
essential structure of society. A good illustration is given 
by the following passage from the Book of Leviticus: 

As for thy bondmen [ebed] and thy bondmaids [amah] whom thou 
shalt have: Of the nations that are round about you, of them shall 
ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the 
strangers that sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their 
families that are with you, which they have begotten in your land; 
and they shall be your possession. And ye shall make them for an 
inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession. Of 
them shall ye take your bondmen forever (Lev. 25:44-46).^ 

Few readers of the Bible among the laity are aware that 
slavery had the public, fundamental character which this 

'The Hebrew word goyim, "nations," in vs. 44, is translated "heathen" by the 
King James Version, on the theory that slavery is a punishment for heathenism. But 
in other cases where the same Hebrew term occurs, it is rendered correctly by the King 
James Version, as in Gen. 12:2, where the promise is made to Abraham, "I will make 
of thee a great nation." If the King James translators were here consistent with their 
usage in Lev. 25 : 44, they would have to make it read, incorrectly, "I will make of thee 
a great heathen." Again, in Gen. 25:23, where Yahweh says to Rebekah, "Two 
nations are in thy womb," they would have to render the passage, "Two heathen," 
etc. In all these passages, the revised versions translate correctly and consistently 
"nation." 

49 



50 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

passage indicates. We must, therefore, emphasize it further 
before proceeding to deal with it from the sociological stand- 
point. An instructive sidelight on the passage that we have 
just quoted from Leviticus is furnished by the "tenth com- 
mandment" (Exod. 20:17). This is a general injunction 
against the sin of covetousness. As translated by the King 
James and the Revised versions it reads: "Thou shalt not 
covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neigh- 
bor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his 
ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's." The 
words rendered "man-servant" and "maid-servant" are 
exactly the same that occur in the passage previously repro- 
duced from Leviticus, namely ebed and amah; and they should 
be translated exactly the same. The slightest thought 
about this well-known commandment is enough to show that 
the "servants" in question must have been regarded as prop- 
erty, or it would not be a sin to covet them. For there is 
nothing wrong in desiring your neighbor's free, hired servant. 
Clearly, then, the Hebrew and the logic of the "tenth com- 
mandment" indicate the fact of slavery. Again, the same 
words recur in another important connection, as follows: 
"If a man smite his bondman [ehed] or his bondwoman 
[amah] with a rod and he die under his hand, he shall surely 
be punished. Nevertheless, if he continue a day or two, he 
shall not be punished, for he is his money'' (Exod. 21:20). 
The nouns for slave in this passage are correctly rendered in 
the margin of the EngHsh and American Revised versions, 
but not in their text, nor anywhere in the King James transla- 
tion. In this last passage, the slave is frankly reckoned, among 
the financial resources of his master, as in the itahcized clause 
reading, "for he is his money." The evidence thus put 
forward could be multiplied if necessary; but it is probably 
sufficient for the purpose in hand. 



INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 51 

Slavery, however, was not peculiar to Israel ; it was common 
to the ancient civilizations. — The origin of slavery is very 
simple. It has no existence where labor is not able to produce 
a surplus of goods over and above immediate needs. Thus, 
the Masai of East Africa have no provisions to spare. They 
are nomads, who live upon herds of a constant size; and 
they kill their prisoners of war. On the other hand, their 
neighbors, the Wakamba, are higher in the evolutionary 
scale, being farmers and traders; and they do not kill their 
prisoners of war, but keep them for industrial purposes.^ 
These two tribes illustrate the contrast between the wander- 
ing and the settled periods of social progress. The nomadic 
Masai have no economic surplus and no slaves. The settled 
Wakamba have both an economic surplus and slaves. The 
general principle at work here is not diihcult to see. 

If we follow social evolution back into the nomadic stage, 
we find many small groups warring fiercely in a great struggle 
for food. Under such conditions, war is a campaign to exter- 
minate rivals. But in the midst of this crude, savage world, 
the trend of social evolution is vastly and profoundly affected 
by all that we designate under the head of "progress in the 
material arts." It is material progress that makes the gulf 
between savagery and civilization. The savage cannot con- 
trol the physical world in which he lives; but the civilized 
man is able to control and shape his environment. Progress 
in the material arts brings with it the power of producing a 
surplus over and above inmiediate needs. This changes the 
issue of war. The victors, instead of slaughtering their prison- 
ers, begin to spare life and to make slaves of the vanquished. 
Thus, material progress converts war from a struggle for 
extermination into a struggle for domination, or control. 
The larger, better organized, and more powerful groups con- 
quered and absorbed the smaller, producing compound social 

' Ratzel, History of Mankind (London, 1896), Vol. I, p. 123. 



52 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

groups, with an upper layer of freemen and a lower class 
of slaves and other inferior persons. Thus there came slowly 
into existence national societies, occupying favored regions 
like the valleys of the Nile, the Tigris, and the Euphrates; 
and the curtain at length rolled up on the stage of world- 
history. These considerations, based on an overwhelming 
mass of evidence, thoroughly sifted and proved by scientific 
research, carry us upward by a direct route through the mists 
and uncertainties of prhneval ages into the light of that 
ancient period in which the Hebrew nation had its remarkable 
history. Ancient Semitic civiHzation comes forward out of 
the darkness of prehistoric times, through a haze of myth and 
legend. Its progress in material art lifts it high above the 
surrounding savagery and barbarism. But it moves under 
the heavy stress and strain of war; and it is everywhere 
stratified into two classes, whereof the lower is the property 
of the upper. 

Slavery arises when society passes over from the nomadic 
to the settled state; and it continues until social evolution 
advances to higher levels. It was one of the pillars upon 
which the structure of society in Old Testament times was 
based. Its prevalence in Israel is hardly realized until we 
study the biblical narratives and laws closely. The fact of 
human bondage in Israel, and in the Semitic civilization as 
a whole, is not to be viewed in the light of modern ideals; 
it is to be approached from the standpoint of the social process 
at large. Ancient civilization may be figured as an oasis, 
green and fertile, amid the desert of savagery and barbarism. 
One of the most important functions of the upper classes in 
ancient history was military defense of society, in order that 
the lower classes might enjoy the peace necessary to produc- 
tive industry. This, of course, was only one of the vital 
functions of the upper orders. It would have been impossible 
for free societies to achieve and organize the progress that has 



INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 53 

paved the world's way upward from savagery into modern 
civilization. Modern democracy is as yet unaware that it 
is a heavy pensioner upon culture attained through despotic 
institutions.^ 

The superior class in Israel was upheld not only by slavery 
but by ownership of the soil. — Slavery is not the only basis 
of distinction between social classes. The institution of 
land ownership is a great factor in the situation. When the 
Israelites entered Canaan a large part of the open country 
came into their grasp. The pastures and farm lands which 
thus became the spoil of war fell sooner or later into the 
possession of the haals, or family chiefs, who ruled the clans 
of Israel.^ The institution of private property in land had 
been long established in the settled parts of the Semitic world; 
and the passage of Israel from desert Hfe into Canaan repre- 
sents their entrance into a new circle of ideas and practices 
with reference to property. The writings of the eighth- 
century prophets and their immediate successors indicate 
that the soil in their day was already reduced to the category 
of absolute private ownership, to all practical intents and 
purposes (Mic. 2:1, 2; Hos. 5:10; Isa. 5:8). By the time 
of Jeremiah, no other treatment of the soil was considered 
possible: "Men shall buy fields for money, and subscribe 
the deeds, and seal them, and call witnesses, in the land of 
Benjamin, and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the 
cities of Judah, and in the cities of the hill-country, and in 
the cities of the lowland, and in the cities of the south" (Jer. 
32:44). The baals, therefore, in addition to their ownership 
of the lower class, acquired the land of the country. No 

'Cf. Wallis, American Journal of Sociology (May, 1902), Vol. VII, pp. 
763 f.; and Examination of Society (1903), pp. 38-46. 

' We need not here go into the subject of the evolution of land-holding from a 
real, or theoretical, common ownership to individual possession. The documentary 
evidence in the Bible is of course too slender to show us just what was the actual 
situation at the period of invasion and settlement. Two systems came into conflict. 



54 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

Other treatment of the soil would have been practicable at 
that period of the world's development. 

The Israelites of the country districts were organized into 
agricultural and pastoral villages. — So far as we can learn, 
there were no isolated houses or tents where single families 
dwelt alone. Such an arrangement would be dangerous at 
that period of the world's history. The pressure of enemies 
from the desert and from neighboring countries made single 
establishments impracticable. The rule was for a number 
of related "father's houses" to unite in a rustic village. 
This was not a "city" m any sense, but merely a hamlet 
set in the midst of the fields and hills. The country districts 
were dotted with these tiny villages. They were collections 
of tents or houses, built close together for protection, without 
regard to architectural beauty or symmetrical arrangement 
of streets. The identification of the unwalled villages with 
the life of the fields about them is indicated thus: "The 
villages that have no wall round about them shall be reckoned 
with the fields of the country" (Lev. 25:31). To the dweller 
in a walled city, like Jerusalem, these tiny hamlets were a 
part of the open country life of the nation: "Let us go forth 
into the field; let us lodge in the villages" (Song of Sol. 
7:11). 

Every mornmg, all who could work went forth into the 
near-by fields; and at night they came back to the shelter of 
the hamlet. A good illustration is found in the village of 
Gibeah, which lay a few mUes northeast of Jerusalem in 
territory pertaining to the clan of Benjamin. Gibeah was a 
very small place, havmg only one main street. In Judg. 
19:16 we read, "And behold, there came an old man from his 
work out of the field at even." Gibeah was the home of Saul, 
who became king of Israel. Concerning Saul we read, "Then 
came the messengers to Gibeah of Saul. And behold Saul 
came followmg the oxen out of the field'' (I Sam. 11:4, 5). 



INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 55 

Israelite country life has this disposition wherever we catch 
sight of it. The boy David cares for the sheep of his father 
Jesse in the hills of Judah; but the family headquarters are 
at the Httle village of Bethlehem (I Sam., chap. 16). The 
home of the prophet Elisha was in the village of Abelmeholah ; 
but his work was in the fields outside. We read that when 
a visitor came to seek him, "Elisha the son of Shaphat was 
plowing with twelve yoke of oxen before him" (I Kings 
19:16, 19). Likewise, the residence of the prophet Amos 
was at the hamlet of Tekoa; and his business was that of a 
shepherd and a dresser of sycamore trees (Amos 7:14). A 
good picture of Israehte village life is found in the Book of 
Ruth. Here, the hamlet of Bethlehem stands in the center 
of the scene. One of the local haals, or household lords, is 
"Boaz of the family of Elimelech." This man owns land 
outside the village, and has many dependents working for him, 
both male and female. All the leading characters of the times 
covered by the books of Judges and Samuel were men belong- 
ing to the upper class in the hill-country. Some were, of 
course, wealthier than others. We reproduce a highly instruct- 
ive passage concerning a sheep master in Judah: 

And there was a man in [the village of] Maon, whose business was 
in Carmel [the garden land]. And the man was very great. And he 
had three thousand sheep and a thousand goats. And he was shearing 

his sheep in Carmel Now the name of the man was Nabal; 

.... and he was of the clan of Caleb. And David heard in the wilder- 
ness that Nabal was shearing his sheep. And David sent ten young 
men .... Get you up to Carmel, and go to Nabal, and greet him in 

my name And Nabal answered .... and said, Who is David ? 

.... There be many slaves now-a-days that break away every man 
from his master (I Sam., chap. 25). 

This passage puts on view a number of the characteristic 
social facts that we have been studying : Nabal was a freeman 
of the Israelite upper class. He belonged to a clan which was 
known as "Caleb." His home was in the rustic village of 



56 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

Maon. His business was in the neighboring fields. He 
possessed much property, which included slaves. His refer- 
ence to the truant habits of slaves was probably suggested by 
personal experience. Nabal's wealth was doubtless above 
the average; but he is a type of the haal class that controlled 
ancient Israehte society. 

Another good illustration is found in the patriarch Abraham. 
Although the Abraham narratives in Genesis are not accepted 
as literal history of the times before the invasion, they are 
excellent sources of knowledge about the society in whose 
midst they were composed and circulated. We must bear in 
mind that while the Book of Genesis relates to prehistoric 
times, it was not written until after the Israehtes had been 
settled in Canaan for hundreds of years. This was brought 
out in our study of the making of the Bible. We classify 
Abraham, then, with Nabal; and we will now examine the 
data, in order to see how the two cases compare. It is said 
that when the patriarch heard that his nephew Lot was taken 
captive, he set forth to the rescue at the head of three hundred 
and eighteen slaves, born in his own family (Gen. 14: 14, 15).^ 
Evidently, Abraham was not the lonely wanderer sometimes 
pictured, but rather a "noun of multitude." In accordance 
with this, we read that he was "very rich in cattle, in silver 
and in gold" (Gen. 13:2). Of like social position and wealth 
was his nephew Lot. "And the land was not able to bear 
them, that they might dwell together; for their substance 
was great. And there was strife between the herdsmen of 
Abram's cattle and the herdsmen of Lot's cattle" (Gen. 
13:6, 7). Excepting that Abraham is necessarily presented 
as a wanderer, his position in the social structure is identical 
with that of Nabal. Abraham's nomadism is imposed upon 
the story by the conditions of the narrative, which purports 
to deal with the ancestors of Israel during the nomadic period 

' The word "slave," ehed, occurs in vs. 15. 



INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 57 

before the invasion of Canaan; but in all other respects, 
Abraham and Lot can be lifted bodily out of the Book of Gene- 
sis and put alongside the leading characters in the Book of 
Samuel. In the same class comes the famous Job, another 
great worthy. It is entirely beside the point to ask whether 
Job was a real historical person or not. He is a type, whether 
he be real or ideal. In the first chapter of the book bearing 
his name, we read that he had eleven thousand cattle and a 
great multitude of slaves.'^ Although deprived of his posses- 
sions by misfortune, he became, according to the story, doubly 
rich in the end. 

There is no evidence that, after the invasion of Canaan, all 
the Israelites moved regularly and uniformly onward from the 
economic activities of nomadism into those of settled life. 
In fact, so far as the evidence permits us to form a definite 
conclusion, it points the other way. No society has ever 
gone smoothly over from one stage of industrial development 
into another. There is always an overlapping of stages. 
And if the pursuits of the more primitive period are essential 
to society (as, for instance, the cattle raising of nomads), 
these pursuits will be continued by a part of the population. 
A number of modern scholars have tried to build a theory 
of Israel's religion upon the assumption of a uniform passage 
from nomadism to agriculture. It is supposed that when 
the Israelites entered Canaan, they all made terms with 
the local Baal cults of the Amorites; which, translated into 
economic terms, means that a number of pastoral clans 
immediately became farmers. The Amorite gods were sup- 
posed to bless the soil, and cause the dew and rain to fall; 
hence their cults were closely bound up with agriculture. 
The farmer had to worship the Baal of his district in order 
to have good crops. It may at once be conceded that a 

'The word indicating bondservants occurs in 1:3; Ahudhah roWa/f, "much 
slave service"; but in the EngHsh versions, "a very great household." 



58 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

majority of the Israelites became farmers after a time, and 
worshiped the Amorite gods. But the assumption is impos- 
sible that all, without exception, bowed the knee to the Baals. 
Agriculture flourished more genially in Ephraim than else- 
where; and here the fusion of IsraeHtes and Amorites was 
more thorough than any^vhere else. But the other two divisions 
of the country— Judah and Gilead — stood in closer touch 
with the Arabian desert, and remained on more primitive 
economic levels. Judah's rocky soil was more friendly to the 
shepherd than to the farmer, as many examples prove. Gilead 
was "a place for cattle" (Num. 32:1). Here, the goats lay 
along the mountain side (Song of Sol. 4:1). Here, people 
and flock fed in the ancient days (Mic. 7:14). And here 
Yahweh would bring Israel once more to the sheepfold and 
the hills (Jer. 50:19). It is highly significant that the first 
two great prophets, EHjah and Amos, are identified with 
Gilead and Judah respectively (I Kings 17:1; Amos 1:1). 
In protesting against the corruption of the age, they are both 
represented as leaving their own, more primitive homes, 
and going over into Ephraim, the favored land of agriculture 
and the stronghold of the Amorite gods. 

No distinct, independent class of merchants and manufac- 
turers, in the European sense, arose in Israel. — The more 
advanced forms of industry, which have had such a tremen- 
dous development in western civilization, were comparatively 
backward in Israel and among the Semites at large. Neverthe- 
less, long before the arrival of Israel in Canaan, a considerable 
trade in manufactured goods and natural products had arisen 
between Egypt, Arabia, Canaan, Mesopotamia, Greece, and 
outlying tribes." In connection with trade, it is necessary to 
have definite centers where exchange can be regularly carried 
on. Hence the growth of cities. Another stimulus to city 

' Breasted, History of Egypt (New York, 1905), p. 260; Rogers, History of 
Babylonia and Assyria (New York, 1901), Vol. II, p. 280. 



INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 59 

life is manufacture, which tends to centralize at the points 
of exchange. We have seen that walled cities dotted the land 
of Canaan long before the Israelites entered the country; 
and we have shown that the invaders were not able to take 
these Amorite strongholds. The confinement of the Israelite 
clans to the hiU-country for several generations excludes 
notice of commerce and manufactures from the narratives of 
Judges and Samuel. In those books, the country landlord 
stands at the forefront of the stage. Although country and 
city — highland and lowland — were at length united under the 
kings of Israel, the Books of Kings in their present form are 
so preoccupied with religious conflicts that the economic 
phase of life is obscured in those writings. 

Among the Semites, the old nobility of the clanships retained 
personal hold over commerce and manufactures, managing 
these forms of industry through slaves. Even kings were not 
ashamed to become traders by proxy, as in the case of Solo- 
mon, who in this regard followed the example of the rulers of 
Egypt and Babylon (I ICings, chaps. 9 and 10). The figures 
of the noble and his steward are familiar in the literature 
of the Old and New Testaments. The chief slave of Abraham, 
''who ruled over all that he had," stood near the top of 
the social system, next under the haal himself (Gen. 24:2). 
Leading slaves of this kind were everywhere favored in 
proportion to their importance. In order to stimulate them 
to the most faithful service, they were given commissions or 
a share in the profits; and they were thus able to acquire 
wealth of their own. The case of Simonides in the novel 
Ben Hur (Book IV, chap, iv) is a well-known illustration. 
Such men might buy their freedom, and set up independently 
of the ancient nobility if they wished, as provided for in 
Leviticus: "If he become rich, he may redeem himself" 
(Lev. 25:49). But the stress of war and the general inse- 
curity were so great in the ancient Semitic world that the 



6o SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

benefit of detachment from the old clanships appears to have 
been outweighed by its disadvantages. Accordingly, favorite 
slaves who became wealthy preferred to stand connected with 
some noble family of established position and influence. 

Thus, there was a tendency in Israel and throughout Semitic 
civilization toward the rise of a distinct merchant and manu- 
facturing class, or "third estate," as it has been called in 
European history. But this tendency never got full expres- 
sion; and the industrial side of life was never detached from 
the old clanships. Much can be learned at this point by 
comparison. In ancient Greece and Rome, and again in 
mediaeval Europe, commerce and manufactures began under 
the conditions just outlined; but their evolution went much 
farther; and the tendency toward the formation of a new 
social class became irresistible. The "third estate" sprang 
into existence outside the limits of the old noble families. 
An interesting situation resulted. The old nobility of Europe, 
through its control of the taxing power and the courts, hin- 
dered the ascent of the third estate. Great historic collisions 
resulted, the outcome of which was the admission of the new 
class to a voice in the government. The basis of the state, 
in Greece, Rome, and modern Europe, was thus transferred 
from Family to Property. In Semitic civilization, however, 
nothing of this kind occurred. Government remained on 
the family basis; and the unfledged "third estate" continued 
within the shelter of the ancient clanships. 

Likewise the laboring class, or proletariat, never acquired 
the character of distinction within Israel. — The earliest legal 
codes in the Old Testament make no mention of hired labor, 
but assume that slavery is the universal condition of the lower 
class. These codes are in Exod., chaps. 20 and 21 ff. But 
in later laws, provision is made for the free laborer, thus: 

Thou shalt not oppress a hired servant that is poor and needy, 
whether he be of thy brethren [the children of Israel], or of thy sojourn- 



INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 6i 

ers that are in thy land within thy gates. In his day thou shalt give 
him his hire ; neither shall the sun go down upon it ; for he is poor and 
setteth his heart upon it (Deut. 24:14, 15). 

Likewise, another late law provides that "the wages of a 
hired servant shall not abide with thee all night until the 
morning" (Lev, 19:13). These laws were made in full view 
of a condition in which the price of hired labor was fixed by 
the overshadowing influence of slavery. Where slavery is 
an established institution, as in Israel, it would not profit 
the upper classes to pay "free" labor much more than slaves 
got — that is, a bare living. This deduction agrees with the 
laws just cited ; for laborers who had to be paid from day to 
day could not have stood above the economic level of slavery. 

The industrial institutions of Israel developed under the forms 
of the ancient Clan State. — In spite of a progressive tendency, 
the economic side of Hebrew life always remained primitive. 
The social classes that became prominent in the later civiliza- 
tions were unfledged in Israel and throughout the Semitic 
world. The "third estate," on the one side, and the "prole- 
tariat," on the other, were never organized on an independent 
footing. They existed potentially; but they had no means 
of self-expression, and no class-consciousness. Our survey 
of Israelite industry, therefore, ends where it set out — ^with the 
clan. From first to last, society was conceived only as a 
brotherhood group. 



CHAPTER VIII 
EARLY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 

All ancient peoples had gods. — It is a commonplace that all 
the clans and nations of antiquity had rehgions, and that 
they aU worshiped what were supposed to be real beings 
which we call "gods." The same is true of present-day savages 
who have not been converted to a higher faith. Ancient 
nations and unconverted savages, then, have this in common: 
they are what we call "pagan," or "heathen." From the 
standpoint of primitive rehgion, or heathenism, there is no 
single, true God, besides whom no other god exists. For 
in the view of primitive rehgion, all gods are equally real : one 
god is as much a real being as another. All the written 
records of antiquity, including the Bible itseK, are prepared 
in view of this impressive fact. Long before the dawn of 
"historic time," the idea became estabhshed in the human 
mind that there are gods. No book — not even the Bible — 
has ever laid open to us the secrets of the process by which the 
human mind became possessed of the god-idea. Sociological 
study of the Bible, therefore, is not required to investigate the 
origin of rehgion in general. It presupposes, or takes for 
granted, the idea of the gods and the practices of heathen 
rehgion as data with which to begin. 

In primitive religion, the gods are thought of as members 
of the social group. — It is a matter of great significance for 
sociology that in primitive rehgion the god of any people 
is considered to be a member of the social circle that worships 
him. The gods, in fact, had as real a place in the social 
fabric as the worshipers themselves. To describe the situa- 
tion in modern terms. Church and State were always united 

62 



EARLY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 63 

in ancient society. Religion and politics were intimately 
connected. The separation of Church and State was unthink- 
able to the ancient mind. The divorce of religion and politics 
was impossible. Everybody was religious. Atheism, skepti- 
cism, and agnosticism, in the modern sense of these words, 
were unknown. Worship of the gods was held to be vitally 
necessary to the welfare of society. If a man refused to take 
part in the religion of his kinship group, he thereby ostracized 
himself. As nonconformity could not be tolerated, he became 
an outcast. The good will and blessing of the gods were 
conditioned upon the performance of the customary acts of 
worship on the part of all members of the group. Each group 
was responsible, as a corporation, for the maintenance of 
religion. It was the feeling of group responsibility that was 
outraged by refusal to take part in the customary acts of 
worship; and it was this group sense of outrage that led to 
the expulsion of the nonconformist. If he were not cast out, 
as a visible expression of abhorrence, the group would be con- 
structively in fellowship with impiety; and this would bring 
down the divine wrath upon all alike. Thus we read: "He 
that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy 

money, must needs be circumcised And the uncir- 

cumcised male . . . . , that soul shall be cut off from his 
people. He hath broken my covenant" (Gen. 17:13, 14; cf. 
Exod. 12 :44, 45). On this point, W. Robertson Smith writes: 
Religion did not exist for the saving of souls, but for the preservation 
and welfare of society, and in all that was necessary to this end every man 
had to take his part, or break with the domestic and political community 
to which he belonged.^ 

The feeling of "group welfare" goes a long way toward 
explaining religious persecution. It was entangled in the 
complex motives of the Reformation period, when Catholics 

' W. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites (London, 1894), p. 29. Cf. 
Barton, Semitic Origins (New York, 1902), chap, iii; Lagrange, Etudes sur les 
religions semitiqiies (Paris, 1905), pp. 70-118. 



64 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

and Protestants viewed each other's worship as offensive to 
God, and hkely to bring down the divine wrath on the entire 
community. 

In view of the former close connection between rehgion and 
politics, it is not surprising to find that primitive thought 
looks upon the gods in a very intimate and familiar way. 
No essential or quahtative distinction was made between 
divinity and humanity. The gods were in fact magnified 
men. They were looked upon as personal beings, essentially 
like men but more powerful; and in the ancient mythologies 
they are said to have lived with men on the earth in the 
springtide of history. 

The social body was not made up of men only, but of gods and men. 
The circle into which a man was born was not simply a group of kinsfolk 
and fellow-citizens, but embraced also certain divine beings, the gods 
of the family and the state, which to the ancient mind were as much a 
part of the particular community with which they stood connected as 
the human members of the social circle. The relation between the gods 
of antiquity and their worshipers was expressed in the language of 
human relationship, and this language was not taken in a figurative 
sense, but with strict literality. If a god was spoken of as a father and 
his worshipers as his offspring, the meaning was that the worshipers were 
literally of his stock, and that he and they made up one natural family 
with reciprocal family duties to each other.^ 

The Hebrew term translated "God" in modern versions 
of the Bible is "el," or "elohim." — The root meaning of the 
Bible word which is translated "God" is power, or might. 
In the singular, it is el, b^ , or eloah, •!l'ibN; . It appears in 
the singular in Exod. 6:3; and it is transliterated in the 
Revised margin of that passage, where the reader is told 
that ''El Shaddai" means ''God Almighty." It reappears 
many times in the New Testament, for instance in the words 
of Jesus on the cross: Eloi, meaning "My God" (Mark 
15:34). It is found in many of the Hebrew names, as Beth-e/ 

' W. Robertson Smith, op. cil.; cf. Fraser, The Golden Bough: Studies in Com- 
parative Religion (London, 1890), Vol. I, pp. 30, 31. 



EARLY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 65 

"House of God" (Gen. 28:19). A striking illustration is 
the name Isra-e/, which is said to mean "God strives" (Gen. 
32:28). Consideration of this term el introduces one of the 
most important aspects of the Bible problem. 

In the first place, we would seem to have good grounds 
for supposing that the term el (the singular form) is the term 
which we always translate " God." This assumption, however, 
is not correct. For it is not the singular el, but the plural 
elohim, D^n'bj^^ which is most frequently rendered "God." 
The singular form occurs only about 200 times in the Old 
Testament; while the plural is found over 2,500 times. The 
syllable im is a plural suffix in Hebrew; so that if we have 
regard to grammatical form, the word elohim should always 
be rendered "gods." This, however, is wrong again. For 
in the picturesque Hebrew usage, the plural sometimes has 
the force of the superlative mode, heightening the function 
of the singular, but not changing its number. In most cases 
where the plural form elohim occurs, the reference is not to 
many gods but to one God. Thus, in the opening sentence of 
Genesis, we read that elohim created the heavens and the 
earth. In this case the context proves that the writer intends 
the singular usage. And since the singular form el indicates 
"power," the use of the plural in this passage means that 
the work of creation was accomplished by Superlative Power, 
i.e., God, viewed as one Being. But in other cases, precisely 
the same plural form, elohim, has the plural sense. Take, 
for instance, the words of David in the following passage: 
"They have driven me out this day . . . . , saying. Go, 
serve other elohim^' (I Sam. 26:19). Here the word is cor- 
rectly translated "gods" by all the versions; yet it is pre- 
cisely the same combination of letters that occurs in the 
opening sentence of Genesis. We have to judge the meaning 
in many instances from the context alone. While there is 
no difficulty in most cases, the word is frequently used in 



66 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

ways that embarrass translators who seek to make popular 
versions. But the difficulty of those who try to make transla- 
tions that can be understood by the wayfaring man is the 
opportunity of purely scientific scholars. Consideration of 
these embarrassing elohim passages will carry us farther 
into the subject before us in this chapter. The first that we 
shall take up under this head occurs in the account of King 
Saul's visit to the witch of Endor, an ancient spirit medium. 
The king wanted to consult the ghost of the prophet Samuel, 
who had recently died. We are not concerned here to discuss 
the rehabihty of this narrative as Hteral history, but merely 
to examine the ideas attaching to the term elohim, which 
occurs in a very startling way in this remarkable story. We 
reproduce a part of the passage: 

Then said Saul unto his slaves, Seek me a woman that hath a famil- 
iar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his slaves 
said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at 
Endor. And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and 
went, he and two men with him. And they came to the woman by 
night. And he said, Divine unto me, I pray thee, by the famihar 

spirit, and bring me up whomsoever I shall name unto thee Then 

said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, 
Bring me up Samuel. And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried 

with a loud voice And the King said unto her. What seest thou ? 

And the woman said unto Saul, I see elohim coming up out of the earth. 
And he said unto her. What form is he of ? And she said, An old man 
cometh up; and he is covered with a robe. And Saul perceived that 
it was Samuel. And he bowed, with his face to the ground, and did 
obeisance. And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me 
to bring me up? (I Sam. 28:73.). 

In modern versions prepared for the people at large, a case 
like this tries very sorely the patience of the translators; 
and the result serves only to distract the devout. In the King 
James Bible, the translators make the woman say, "I saw 
gods coming up." This is followed immediately by the ques- 
tion from Saul, "What form is he of ?" or "What is his form ?" 



EARLY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 67 

But if the word elohim should be rendered "gods," as the 
King James Bible has it, then Saul's question should be, 
"What is their form?" The Hebrew text, however, will 
not permit this, for it goes on to talk about one person, i.e., 
Samuel. Accordingly, both Revised versions, English and 
American, change the main text of the translation to the sin- 
gular, and make the woman say, "I see a god coming up," 
in this way securing grammatical agreement with the ques- 
tion, "What form is he of?" But the Revisers thereupon 
place "gods" in the margin. So that the wayfaring man is 
left in much perplexity. Not only so; but it surprises him 
to encounter the term "god," or "gods," in the Bible with 
reference to a human being. Leaving this matter open, we 
turn to another instructive case in the same category, as 
follows : 

And it came to pass, when men began to muhiply on the face of the 
earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of the elohim 
saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them 
wives of all which they chose. There were giants in the earth in those 
days; and also, after that, when the sons of the elohim came in unto 
the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same were the 
mighty men which were of old, the men of renown (Gen. 6:1, 2, 4). 

In this case, the King James Bible and the Revised versions 
alike turn the Hebrew phrase "the sons of the elohim^' into 
"the sons of God"; and all marginal instruction for the benefit 
of the laity is omitted. While we cannot be dogmatic on this 
point, it is probable that the phrase should be translated "the 
sons of the gods," rather than "the sons of [the One] God," as 
our English versions render it. What we have here, apparently, 
is a fragment of primitive epic, standing on the same plane 
of culture with the passage quoted from Samuel. It is a 
bit of ancient mythology which came down to the editor of 
Genesis from Semitic heathenism. The sons of the gods 
cohabit with the daughters of men, and beget a progeny of 



68 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

giants. Precisely the same thing takes place in the Greek 
Bible, the Iliad, where the heroes have a double ancestry, 
human and divine.' 

The most common form of primitive religion is worship of 
gods pertaining to family and clan groups. — Family religion 
at first appears to be ancestor worship. This is well repre- 
sented by the Chinese, with their "ancestral tablets," 
before which they bow in worship and leave offerings of food. 
In ancient Rome we find the "Lares," or private family 
gods. Concerning these, the historian Mommsen writes: 

Of all the worships of Rome that which perhaps had the deepest 
hold was the worship of the tutelary spirits that presided in and over 
the household and the store-chamber. These were in family worship 
the gods of the household in the strict sense, the Lases or Lares, to 
whom their share of the family meal was regularly assigned [as among 
the Chinese], and before whom it was, even in the time of Cato the Elder, 
the first duty of the father of the household on returning home to per- 
form his devotions. In the ranking of the gods, however, these spirits 
of the house and of the field occupied the lowest rather than the highest 
place.^ 

A careful study of primitive religion has been made at 
first hand by Rev. Duff Macdonald, a Presbyterian missionary 
in central Africa. His work among the Soudanese natives 
brought him into contact with ideas and practices that carry 
us far back into the atmosphere of primitive religion. He 
shows that the prayers and offerings of the natives are directed 
toward the spirits of household chiefs who have passed away. 
"It is here," he says, ''that we find the great center of the 
native religion. The spirits of the dead are the gods of the 
Uving." In view of such facts, we now begin to see why it is 
that primitive religion always regards the gods as actual 

' It is true that the definite article, when placed thus, is intended sometimes to 
indicate the one, true God, as in Isa. 37: i6and4s: i8. But would any Hebrew scholar 
assimilate these lofty spiritual passages in Isaiah with the sensually suggestive passage 
in Gen., chap. 6? 

^ Mommsen, History of Rome (New York), Vol. I, pp. 213 f. (Italics ours.) 



EARLY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 69 

members of the social groups that worship them. Mr. Mac- 
donald writes : 

In all our translations of Scripture where we found the word God 
we used Mulungu; but this word is chiefly used by the natives as a 
general name for spirit. The spirit of a deceased man is called his 
Mulungu, and all the prayers and offerings of the living are presented 
to such spirits of the dead. It is here that we find the great center of 
the native rehgion. The spirits of the dead are the gods of the living. 
Where are these gods found? At the grave? No. The villagers 
shrink from yonder gloomy place that lies far beyond their fields on the 

bleak mountain side Their god is not the body in the grave, but 

the spirit, and they seek this spirit at the place where their departed 
kinsman last lived among them. It is the great tree at the verandah 
of the dead man's house that is their temple; and if no tree grow here 

they erect a little shade, and there perform their simple rites The 

spirit of an old chief may have a whole mountain for his residence, but 
he dwells chiefly on the cloudy summit. There he sits to receive the 
worship of his votaries, and to send down the refreshing showers in 

answer to their prayers It is not usual for anyone to approach the 

gods except the chief of the village. It is his relatives that are the 
village gods. Everyone that lives in the village recognizes these gods; 
but if anyone remove to another village he changes his gods. He 

recognizes now the gods of his new chief Ordinary ghosts are soon 

forgotten with the generation that knew them. Not so a few select 
spirits, the Caesars, the Napoleons, the Charlemagnes, the Timurs of 
savage empires. A great chief that has been successful in his wars 
does not pass out of memory so soon. He may become the god of a 
mountain or a lake, and may receive homage as a local deity long after 
his own descendants have been driven from the spot. When there is 
a supplication for rain the inhabitants of the country pray not so much 
to their own forefathers as to the god of yonder mountain on whose 
shoulders the great rain-clouds repose.^ 

The idols of Israel and other peoples had the character of 
images representing the gods. — In primitive religion it is cus- 
tomary to prepare some physical token or symbol toward 
which the worshiper may direct his prayers and offerings. 

' Macdonald, Africana; Allen, Evolution of the Idea of God (New York, 1897), 
pp. 25-28. (Italics ours.) 



70 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

Thus the idols of paganism originate; and they take many 
forms. Sometimes the dead body of a chief is embahned and 
worshiped. In ancient Egypt the gods were thus frequently 
represented by a mummy. In that country the god Osiris 
was said to have lived on the earth in early ages, and to have 
been killed by his brother. Concerning this god, Professor 
Breasted writes: 

The original home of Osiris was .... in the Delta; but Abydos, 
in Upper Egypt, early gained a reputation of pecuKar sanctity, because 
the head of Osiris was bmied there. He always appeared as a closely 
swathed figure, enthroned as a Pharaoh or merely a curious pillar, a 
fetish surviving from his prehistoric worship. The external mani- 
festations and the symbols with which the Egyptian clothed these gods 
are of the simplest character and they show the primitive simpHcity 
of the age in which these deities arose.^ 

The Israelites had family gods, represented by images. — 
Bearing in mind the facts adduced above, we shall now con- 
sider the traces of household, or family, religion in Israel. 
The private gods of Israel were known as teraphim. It will 
be noticed that this is a plural form; but it may indicate 
many gods or one, as its usage is analogous to that of elohim. 
We find a very instructive example of household rehgion in 
the family of a certain Micah, an Israelite of the upper class, 
living in the highlands of Ephraim. His date is not known; 
but he is said to have Hved in the "Judges" period, before 
the time of the monarchy. We quote as foUows: 

And there was a man of the hill-country of Ephraim whose name 

was Micah And the man Micah had a house of elohim [gods], and 

he made an ephod and teraphim, and consecrated one of his sons, who 

became his priest And there was a young man out of Bethlehem- 

Judah .... who was a Levite And the man departed out 

of ... . Bethlehem-Judah, to sojourn where he could find a place; 

and he came to .... the house of Micah, as he journeyed 

And the Levite was content to dwell with the man And Micah 

' Breasted, History of Egypt (New York, 1905), p. 60. 



EARLY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 71 

consecrated the Levite; and the young man became his priest (Judg., 
chap. 17). 

The narrative in Judges goes on to relate the circumstances 
under which the tribe of Dan, consisting of six hundred 
warriors, robbed Micah of his priest and his teraphim. At 
first the Levite objected; but the Danites bade him hold 
his peace, asking him, "Is it better for thee to be a priest 
unto the house of one man or to be a priest unto a tribe and 
a family in Israel ?" No answer to this question is recorded; 
but the story continues, "And the priest's heart was glad; 
and he took the ephod and the teraphim and the graven 
image, and went in the midst of the people" (Judg., chap. 
18). Here we find the cult of the teraphim in a private family, 
from which it is appropriated by a large clan. Another 
trace of the teraphim is found in the home of David, as fol- 
lows: 

And Saul sent messengers unto David's house, to watch him, and to 
slay him in the morning. And Michal, David's wife, told him, saying, 
If thou save not thy life tonight, tomorrow thou wilt be slain. So 
Michal let David down through the window. And he went and fled 
and escaped. And Michal took the teraphim and laid it in the bed, 
and put a pillow of goat's hair at the head thereof, and covered it with 
the clothes. And when Saul sent messengers to take David, she said. 
He is sick. And Saul sent the messengers to see David, saying. Bring 
him up to me in the bed, that I may slay him. And when the mes- 
sengers came in, behold the teraphim was in the bed, with the pillow of 
goat's hair at the head thereof (I Sam. 19:11-16). 

From this passage, we learn that the teraphim was an image 
having a human form, or it could not have been put to the 
use indicated. We quote another instance: 

Now Laban was gone to shear his sheep; and Rachel stole the 

teraphim that were her father's And Laban said to Jacob .... 

Wherefore hast thou stolen my gods [elohim] ? And Jacob answered 
and said to Laban .... With whomsoever thou findest thy gods, he 
shall not live For Jacob knew not that Rachel had stolen 



72 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

them Now Rachel had taken the kraphim and put them in 

the camel's saddle, and sat upon them. And Laban felt all about the 
tent, but found them not (Gen., chap. 31). 

The real nature of the teraphim is obscure to us. They 
were clearly a species of elohim, or god. They were images 
having a human form. They were a part of the private, 
household rehgion that is found in all ancient and primitive 
societies. Before them were cast lots (Ezek. 21:21). Their 
worship could be transferred from the auspices of a private 
family to those of a clan, as in the case of Micah and the 
Danites. But beyond these considerations we are in the 
dark as to the family cult in Israel. 

Next above the family gods in Israel were other local gods, 
the Baalim, etc. — Above this humble form of worship there 
developed a great superstructure of religious institutions 
which commanded the devotion of many families in common. 
The genesis of these more extensive and widely practiced 
cults is easily understood, for we can often see them 
in process of construction. Under favorable circumstances, 
a god who has but few adherents may attract a wider circle 
of worshipers. It should be understood that a god can rise 
to leadership in the same way a man goes up in the social 
scale. A number of clans may unite against their enemies, 
taking the god of the leading clan as an object of common 
worship within the confederation. The estabhshment of 
w^der cults outside the limits of the household group does 
not bring with it suppression of the humbler forms of religion; 
for several degrees, or grades, of religious institutions can 
exist within a community. 

After the Israelites entered Canaan, many of them adopted 
from the Amorite inhabitants a form of religion that stood out- 
side the limits of private, or family worship. This was the cult 
of the Baals, or Baalim, already noticed. We have seen that 
the term baal, in the singular, mdicates the master and pro- 



EARLY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 73 

prietor of the Israelite family. In the same way, the local 
Baals of the Amorites were looked upon as the divine owners 
and masters of different parts of Caanan. Those of the 
Israelites who intermarried with the Amorites, and took up 
farming — especially in Ephraim — adopted the worship of the 
Baals quite naturally as a part of the legitimate system of 
religion. We shall recur to the highly important subject of 
Baal worship in a later part of our study. 

Above the worship of the teraphim and Baalim stood the 
cult of Yahweh. — We now come to the widest form of Israel's 
religion — to the cult which overtopped that of all the local 
gods of the people of Canaan. When the Israelites finally 
succeeded in forming a national social group under the kings, 
the cult of Yahweh became the national religion. We cannot 
now learn how general and widely diffused the worship of 
Yahweh was at the time of the invasion. We do not know 
how many clans took part in this movement; nor how many 
of the clans which the Old Testament reckons to Israel in 
the desert were formed after the settlement in Canaan. But 
it is clear that certain people called Israelites brought this 
cult into Canaan from the desert; and that around this cult 
the Israelites and the Amorites gradually fused into a nation 
whereof Yahweh became the divine symbol. 

The idea of Yahweh, as found in the earlier parts of the 
Bible, is very primitive. He was at first worshiped in Israel 
as a local Semitic deity. Not only were the Baals of the 
Amorites worshiped at the same time with him; but the 
Israelites also admitted the reality and power of the gods 
of other foreign peoples. His earlier, local character comes 
distinctly into view as we examine the more ancient parts 
of the Old Testament. A good illustration is found in a speech 
attributed to one of the Israelite chiefs in the Judges period, 
in which he addresses the king of the Ammonites, east of the 
Jordan, to this effect: "So now, Yahweh, the god of Israel, 



74 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

hath dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel, 
and shouldst thou possess them ? Wilt not thou possess that 
which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess ? " (Judg. 1 1 : 23, 
2 4) . The argument here urged by the IsraeHte chief, is based on 
the "divine right of conquest." Israel is entitled to keep the 
territory that has been won by the help of Yahweh; and, in 
the same way, the Ammonites ought to keep the territory 
that has been given to them by their god Chemosh. This 
foreign god appears to have been worshiped also by the 
Moabites, who occupied neighboring lands east of the Jordan. 
He appears in another passage: "Woe to thee, Moab: Thou 
art undone, O people of Chemosh. He hath given his sons 
as fugitives, and his daughters into captivity" (Num. 21:29). 
The early Israehtes beheved in the reahty and power of 
Chemosh and other foreign gods just as they beheved in the 
reality of Yahweh. 

Another instructive reference to the god Chemosh is found 
in the account of a battle between Israel and Moab. The 
conflict was going against the Moabites: "And when the 
king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took 
with him seven hundred men that drew sword, to break 
through unto the king of Edom, but they could not." So 
closely were the Moabites besieged in their capital city that 
they found it impossible to break out and escape. Goaded 
to desperation, King Mesha now resolved upon a measure of 
the last extremity: "Then he took his eldest son, that should 
have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt-offering 
upon the wall." This was done with all solemnity upon the 
wall of the besieged city, in full view of the Israehtes, who 
knew just what it meant. The kuig was giving up to the god 
Chemosh his eldest son m the hope that the god of Moab would 
thus be stunulated to fight harder for his people, and pour 
the vials of his wrath upon Israel. After giving full details 
up to this point the Bible narrative ends abruptly m embarrass- 



EARLY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 75 

ment. King Mesha had seized the "psychological moment" 
for his awful sacrifice. "And there came great wrath upon 
Israel; and they departed from him and returned to their 
own land" (II Kings 3:26, 27). 

The gods of Moab and Israel reappear in the background 
of the Book of Ruth. An Israelite widow, Naomi, who had 
been living in Moab, set out to return to Israel. Seeing her 
two daughters-in-law following, she bade them return. One 
of them obeyed; but the other, whose name was Ruth, would 
not. Naomi thereupon said to Ruth: "Behold, thy sister- 
in-law is gone back unto her people and unto her god. Return 
thou after thy sister-in-law" (Ruth 1:15). In other words, 
Naomi urged her Moabite daughters-in-law to return to their 
people and to the worship of Chemosh, the god of Moab. 
But Ruth replied: "Where thou goest, I will go; and where 
thou lodgest, I will lodge. Thy people shall be my people, 
and thy god my god." From these words, the older com- 
mentators and interpreters of the Bible concluded that Ruth 
was a convinced adherent of Yahweh, the god of Israel. But 
the little story gets its point, not from Ruth's devotion to 
Yahweh, but from her attachment to Naomi. She empha- 
sizes that whatever people, or god, or land, is chosen by 
Naomi will be acceptable to Ruth. So, in the passage already 
quoted from Rev. Mr. Macdonald's Africana, we read, "If 
anyone remove to another village he changes his gods. He 
recognizes now the gods of his new chief." Exactly the same 
attitude was taken by Ruth and Naomi; and any other 
interpretation does violence to this beautiful tale of ancient 
Israel. 

Our object in this chapter is to become acquainted with 
the atmosphere of primitive religion, so that we may estimate 
faithfully the development of Israel's religion in connection 
with the social process. The Moabites were neighbors of 
Israel; and anything that illustrates their practices and 



76 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

ideas helps us to recover and interpret the social situation in 
ancient Israel. To this end, we shall find it instructive to 
examine a few sentences from the famous "Moabite Stone." 
This remarkable object was discovered in 1868 in the land of 
Moab. Its language is fundamentally the same as that of the 
Old Testament Hebrew. The translation of the inscription, 
which we quote in part, is by Professor Driver, of Oxford 
University: 

I am Mesha, son Chemosh, king of Moab. . And I made this high- 
place for Chemosh . . because he had saved me from all the assailants. . 
Omri, king of Israel, afiflicted Moab for many days because Chemosh was 
angry with his land. . And Chemosh said unto me, Go, take Nebo 
against Israel. And I went by night, and fought against it from the 
break of dawn until noon. And I took it and slew the whole of it. 
.... And I took thence the vessels of Yahweh, and I dragged them 
before Chemosh. And the king of Israel had built Yahas and abode 
in it while he fought against me. But Chemosh drave him out from 

before me And Chemosh said unto me, Go down, fight against 

Horonen And I went down.' 

The inscription explains itself. King Mesha and his god 
Chemosh have been previously introduced by the Old Testa- 
ment. The attitude of the Moabites toward Chemosh is 
the same as the earlier attitude of the IsraeHtes toward 
Yahweh. Chemosh "saves" the Moabites. He is "angry 
with his land." He "said unto them" to do certain specific 
things. He " drave out " the enemy. The general atmosphere 
of the inscription is so much like that of the older documents 
ui the Bible, that if IsraeHte names were substituted for 
the Moabite names, one might suppose the inscription to be 
taken out of the Bible itself. 

We have seen that removal from a country was thought 
to be equivalent to leavuig the presence of the god of the land, 
as m the case of Ruth and Naomi, who thought it a matter 

' Encyclopaedia Biblica (New York, 1902), Vol. Ill, cols. 3045 and 3046. (Italics 
ours.) 



EARLY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 77 

of course to worship the deity of any people among whom 
they took up their abode. This idea is illustrated impres- 
sively by words attributed to David at the time King Saul 
was pursuing him to take his life: "They have driven me out 
this day that I should not cleave unto the inheritance of 
Yahweh, saying, Go serve other gods. Now therefore let not 
my blood fall to the earth away from the presence of Yahweh^' 
(I Sam. 26:19, 20).^ 

In the early period, the will of Yahweh was discovered 
mainly by the sacred lot — "Urim and Thummim." — The most 
common way of "inquiring of Yahweh" was by means 
of the ephod. "And David said to Abiathar the priest, 
Bring me hither the ephod. And Abiathar brought thither the 
ephod to David. And David inquired of Yahweh'' (I Sam. 
30:7, 8). What was the ephod? If we turn to the story of 
Gideon, in the Book of Judges, we find that an ephod was 
made of metal. 

And Gideon said unto them, I would make a request of you, that ye 
would give me every man the ear-rings of his spoil. For they had golden 

ear-rings And they answered, We will willingly give them. 

And they spread a garment, and did cast therein every man the ear- 
rings of his spoil. And the weight of the golden ear-rings that he 

requested was a thousand and seven hundred shekels of gold 

And Gideon made an ephod thereof, and put it in his city, even in Ophrah 
(Judg. 8:24-27). 

The ephod, then, was made of metal. But what kind of 
an object was it ? And in what way was it used in the pro- 
cess of "consulting Yahweh" ? The details are suggested by 
a passage in the First Book of Samuel, which carries us another 
step into this interesting subject: 

And Saul said, Draw nigh hither, all ye chiefs of the people, and 
know and see wherein this sin hath been this day. For, as Yahweh 

' This translation is given by the EngUsh and American Revised versions. The 
King James Bible renders the second sentence, out of harmony with the thought 
and atmosphere of the first, as follows: "Let not my blood fall to the earth before the 
face of the Lord." 



78 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

liveth, who saveth Israel, though it be in Jonathan my son, he shall 
surely die. But there was not a man among all the people that answered 
him. Then said he unto all Israel, Be ye on one side; and I and my 
son Jonathan will be on the other side. And the people said unto Saul, 
Do what seemeth good unto thee. Therefore, Saul said unto Yahweh, 
the god of Israel, Give a perfect lot. And Jonathan and Saul were 
taken; but the people escaped. And Saul said. Cast between me and 
Jonathan my son. And Jonathan was taken (I Sam. 14:38-42). 

From this passage, we learn that when people "inquired 
of Yahweh," they cast lots. In the Greek translation of the 
same passage (the Septuagint), we get a still clearer view of 
the process of casting lots. For in that version, Saul asks 
that, if evil be in him or his son, Yahweh will give Urim; 
and that, if evil be in the people of Israel, Yahweh wiU 
give Thummim. Going back to the Hebrew text, we find 
that there were three ways of consulting Yahweh: "And 
when Saul inquired of Yahweh, Yahweh answered him not, 
neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets" (I Sam. 
28:6). 

We now have before us the materials for answering our 
question: The Urim and Thummim were a kind of sacred 
dice, cast or shaken before a metallic image called an ephod. 
In the time of Judges and Samuel, these objects were a part 
of the regular machinery of religion. They were used by all 
the leading men, like David, Saul, and Gideon. While the 
priest, holding the Urim and Thummim, stood waiting before 
the ephod-image, the inquiring worshiper would call upon 
Yahweh, saying, "Show the right!" or, "Give a perfect 
lot!" just as Saul did in the passage quoted. Then the 
inquirer would bid the priest to cast the lot. The questions 
addressed to the oracle were always put in a form that could 
be answered "Yes" or "No" (e.g., I Sam. 23:9-12; 30:7-8). 
The process of consulting Yahweh could be carried on at an 
established sanctuary; or, if that were out of the question, 






EARLY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 79 

the priest could bring the reUgious equipment with him to the 
inquirer. Thus, we read: "It came to pass, when Abiathar 
.... fled to David to Keilah, that he came down with an 
ephod in his hand" (I Sam. 23:6). 

This is as near as we can come to a description of the im- 
portant process of "consulting" Yahweh in his character 
as a local Semitic deity in ancient Israel. The reason we 
have so much difficulty in getting a clear idea of the subject 
is very simple: The Bible was not written for the purpose 
of giving instruction about such things. It was made for an 
entirely different end, with other objects in view (see supra, 
chap, iv, "The Making of the Old Testament"). Hence we 
should not be surprised if it is necessary to go on the track of a 
subject through a great many chapters and books of the Bible, 
comparing a large number of passages and verses in order 
to reach the facts. This matter of the ephod illustrates 
very well the confusion between early and late practices. Most 
readers of the Bible have the impression that the ephod in 
ancient Israel was always an article of dress, worn by the high 
priest;! while the Urim and Thummim have not been con- 
nected with anything definite in the lay mind. This is because 
we get our ideas from the later and more impressive books 
of the Bible, which are placed at the very beginning of the 
Old Testament. As a matter of fact, the priest in later 
Judaism (i.e., after the Babylonian exile) actually wore an 
article of dress called the "ephod"; while the mysterious 
Urim and Thummim were kept in a pocket on the front of the 
ephod, but were no longer used for casting lots in the old 
heathen fashion (Exod. 28:28-30). The older practice in 
Judges and Samuel was followed by the leading men of the 
period; and it was condemned only by such men as the late 
editor through whom the Book of Judges was compiled.^ 

' "And all Israel played the harlot after it .... , and it became a snare to 
Gideon and his house" (Judg. 8: 27). 



8o SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

Bible tradition suggests that the cult of Yahweh, in its 
earlier form, did not originate in Israel. — Most religions of 
antiquity look upon the gods as the actual, physical ances- 
tors of their worshipers, connected with them by ties of 
actual kinship. But the Bible declares that Israel and Yahweh 
became connected by a covenant, which was made at a specified 
moment of time and in a particular place. In the words 
of Hosea, "I am Yahweh thy god from the land of EgypV 
(Hos. 12:9). In accordance with this, we are told by the 
Book of Exodus that Israel and Yahweh entered into a solemn 
covenant at Mount Horeb-Sinai, just after the exodus from 
Egyptian territory. The familiar word "testament," in one 
of its usages, indicates a covenant; and in this way it finds 
application to the Bible. " I will take you to me for a people; 
and I win be to you a god " (Exod. 6:7). "And thou, Yahweh, 
became their god" (II Sam. 7:24). Now, the question here 
is, How came the rehgion of Israel to have this covenant 
character? The Old Testament speaks of several transac- 
tions between Yahweh and the patriarchs prior to the one 
at Mount Sinai. But the covenant referred to in the body 
of the Hexateuch and in the books of the prophets is the 
Sinai covenant. It is to this that Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, 
Jeremiah, and other prophetic writers refer, either expressly 
or by implication. The covenant of the prophets, as David- 
son writes, is the covenant of Sinai, in which Yahweh became 
the god of Israel.' If Yahweh thus became the god of Israel 
at a certain time and place, it follows, according to the logic 
of primitive rehgion, that he must have been connected with 
some other people before the Israehtes entered into relation 
with him. The Old Testament says that the covenant was 
made in the Arabian wilderness, prior to the invasion of 
Canaan. Whatever this transaction was, it Ues on the border- 

' Davidson, Theology of the Old Testament (New York, 1904), p. 246. 



EARLY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF ISRAEL 8i 

land between Israel's prehistoric, nomadic age in the desert 
and the historic period after the settlement; and there is 
difficulty in reconstructing its details upon the basis of the 
evidence at our disposal. 

The material referring to this period is of too uncertain a 
character for us to form a definite idea of the situation; and 
the history of the Israehtes in the Arabian desert must remain 
shrouded in darkness. We have seen, over and over again, 
that the Hexateuchal view of the Israehte invasion and settle- 
ment of Canaan has much lower historical value than the 
corresponding narratives in Judges and Samuel; and this 
consideration, along with many others, leads us to use the 
Hexateuch with extreme caution at aU points. The out- 
standing impression left upon us, after going over the evi- 
dence, is that the cult of Yahweh became current among the 
Israelites through their contact with a pastoral clan whose 
wandering ground was in the Sinai peninsula. But Old 
Testament scholarship is coming to agreement that we cannot 
envisage the nomadic history of Israel in any clear Hght. 
Whatever the covenant in the Arabian desert may have been, 
the history of Israel in Canaan shows that this transaction 
was not looked upon as a matter of exceptional meaning or 
importance for many centuries after the settlement. Cove- 
nants admitting strangers to the worship of local gods were 
frequently made in ancient society. Moreover, a covenant, 
in primitive religion, carries with it no different idea of morality 
than is provided by the other agencies of early religious life; 
and there is no ground for the view that this particular cove- 
nant, by which the Israelites acquired the primitive cult of 
Yahweh, brought with it anything new in the sphere of morality 
or ethics. For Yahweh is interpreted by the great prophets 
as the patron of that mishpat, or customary moraHty, which is 
identified with the primitive clan group. It was the forcing of 



82 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

Amorite law and morals upon the more primitive Israelites 
that brought the prophets forward as champions of the old 
mishpat, and emphasized Yahweh's relation to the morality 
of the desert.' 

' \VhiIe the h\'pothesis that the cult of Yahweh came to the Israelites through 
covenant with another clan, the Kenites, appears reasonable, I cannot accept the view 
of Budde, Harper, and others, that this transaction contained the seeds of Israel's 
distinctive ethical development. Budde's thesis maintains that the religion of Israel 
became ethical because it was a religion of choice, which established a voluntary- 
relation between a people and its god (as in the case of husband and wife). The Isra- 
ehtes, therefore, having adopted a strange deity, were not well acquainted with their 
god's ways; and whenever they suffered misfortune, they were driven to ask what 
they had done to offend this new god, Yahweh. Consequently, they acquired a very 
tender conscience, which forced them to look well to their conduct. This is an ingen- 
ious, but artificial, view of the problem, which is not supported by the facts, and which 
fails to "explain" Israel's history. Budde's argument for the Kenite derivation of 
the Yahweh cult is well sustained; but his use of the premises, after obtaining them, 
has not commended his philosophy to biblical scholars in general. 

Budde's theory is no more convincing than the ascription to Moses of the estab- 
lishment of a nation in the desert, and the consequent broadening of morahty beyond 
the limits of the clan. Even supposing such work to have been done by Moses, it 
affords no point of departure for the actual process of rehgious-moral development 
which took place in the Hebrew nation. More and more it is becoming evident that 
the historic fact in the Hexateuch is the importation of a desert god and a nomadic 
moraUty into the midst of settled, Amorite civilization; and even the Hexateuch 
itself is not our chief source for this fact. The Judges-Samuel-Kings docmnents and 
the prophetic books bear witness to it in more sober terms. The conditions and the 
demands for the broadening of morality beyond the limits of the clan did not exist 
imtil after the Israelite settlement in Canaan. The work of Moses was rather that 
of introducing or emphasizing the cult of Yahweh than of expounding a new system of 
ethics; and whatever he may have done, the vital conditions of Hebrew religious 
development are to be sought in Canaan, and not in the desert. For this process, 
our chief authorities are the books of Judges, Samuel, Kings, and the various 
prophets; while the Hexateuch has only a secondary value. 



PART III 

DEVELOPMENT OF BIBLE RELIGION 



FOREWORD TO PART III 

In this division of the study we turn to our central theme, 
the social process through which the religion of the Bible came 
into the world. 



8s 



CHAPTER IX 
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT 

The religion of the Hebrews acquired its distinctive character 
through a long struggle.— The religion of the Bible was born 
amid a great warfare. The Hebrew nation was the arena of a 
mighty struggle whose echoes have resounded through the 
ages. When we go behind the scenes, and begin to consider 
the circumstances amid which, and through which, the Bible 
religion came into the world, we are thrown back upon a local, 
definite, concrete situation of great interest. Yahweh emerges 
into distinction through a struggle against the Baal-worship 
which was derived from the Amorite side of the nation's 
ancestry. We do not connect him with warfare against Mar- 
duk of Babylon, or Amon of Egypt, or any other far-away 
deity. It is the Baal-idea that serves as the foil against 
which the Yahweh-idea takes on its distinctive character; 
and even in the New Testament period the opposition to 
Yahweh is condensed in Baal-zebub, the prince and leader of 
all the devils. 

The Bible-idea of God arose in connection with social move- 
ments. — Sociological study of the Bible is not concerned with 
the question how religion in general came into the world. It 
does not undertake to show how the idea of the gods arose. 
Suffice it to know that all the ancient peoples, including the 
Hebrews, actually did have gods and religions. Sociological 
study of the Bible sets out with the idea of the gods as one 
of its presuppositions — one of the facts, or categories, to be 
taken for granted at the beginning of the discussion. Religion 
was in the world many ages before the Hebrew nation was 

86 



GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT 87 

born. Our problem is not, How did religion arise? but, 
How did Bible religion arise? 

This religion took form around the idea of "Yahweh." 
We shall never know how the worship of Yahweh first became 
current, any more than we can trace the steps by which the 
Greeks got the worship of Zeus, the Egyptians that of Osiris, 
or the Babylonians that of Marduk. But there is no evidence 
that the worship of Yahweh stood at first upon any different 
footing than did the other cults of the ancient world. To 
anticipate the argument, we shall see that the Bible religion 
came into existence by the sifting of ancient religious ideas 
through the peculiar national experience of the Hebrews. 
This national experience was unlike that of any other ancient 
people; and it set the Hebrew mind at work in channels 
different from those that opened before their contemporaries. 
We cannot, of course, box the truth within the compass of 
mere words and phrases. The terms "evolution" and "nat- 
ural development" are attractive; but they do not solve the 
problem before us. The problem of the Bible is that of the 
connections between certain facts. What the facts are, we 
shall see in due course. The religion of the Bible took form 
gradually through a series of emergencies, or crises, in which 
the idea of Yahweh passed from stage to stage. The epochs 
in this process have left their marks in the Bible as clearly 
as the various geological periods have left their traces in the 
strata of the earth. 



CHAPTER X 

THE CONFLICTING STANDPOINTS 

The struggle that convulsed the ancient Hebrews was a con- 
flict between the standpoints of nomadism and civilization. — 
There is a fundamental difference between the standpoint 
of nomadism and the standpoint of civilization. This dif- 
ference is involved in the general contrast between society 
in motion and society at rest. It is concretely illustrated by 
the treatment of property in land; for manifestly, one of 
the distuictions between society in motion and society at 
rest is in the attitude taken up with reference to external 
nature. 

The very circumstances of nomadic life make it impossible 
to reduce the earth itself to private or individual property. 
In the wandering clan, a given territory or district belongs to 
all in common. Although two clans may, by agreement, 
respect each other's rights to wander in certain parts of the 
wilderness, each clan or tribe holds its territory as a common 
possession. Thus it was among the American Indians, who 
knew nothing about private property in land before the 
European settlement; and so it is among all the wandering 
races of mankind. With reference to the Indians of New 
England before the coming of the English, we read: 

The Indian did not need much government, and his manner of life 

did not admit of his being much subjected to its control Personal 

ownership of land was a conception which had not risen on his mind. .... 
For the protection of life and of hunting-grounds against an enemy, it 
was necessary that there should be unity of counsel and of action in a 
tribe The New England Indians had fimctionaries for such 



THE CONFLICTING STANDPOINTS 89 

purposes; the higher class known as sachems, the subordinate, or those 
of inferior note or smaller jurisdiction, as sagamores^ 

The primitive group moves about in search of food, and 
holds together for purposes of defense. The welfare of the 
individual is merged in that of the clan. The good fortune 
of the clan is necessarily the good fortune of all its members; 
and in the same way, the suffering of the clan is felt by all 
its members. Although a clan may attack and plunder 
another group, its very breath of life is justice between its 
own people. Thus, the English traveler Doughty says of 
the desert Arabs, among whom he lived: 

The nomad tribes we have seen to be commonwealths of brethren. 

.... They divide each other's losses The malicious subtlety 

of usury [interest] is foreign to the brotherly dealing of the nomad 

tribesmen Their justice is such, that in the opinion of the next 

governed countries, the Arabs of the wilderness are the justest of mortals. 
Seldom the judges and elders err, in these small societies of kindred, 
where the life of every tribesman lies open from his infancy and his 
state is to all men well known.^ 

Since the territory over which the clan roams is regarded 
as the common storehouse of provision for everybody in the 
group, the clan's ideas about "justice" and "right" come to 
be insensibly and subtly bound up with its relation to the 
soil. There is, of course, no direct and conscious connection 
in the group mind between justice and common property in 
the land. Yet these ideas hang together in a way which 
the individual member of the group may not be able to state 
clearly, but which he feels instinctively and profoundly. 

' Palfrey, History of New England (Boston, 1858), Vol. I, pp. 36, 37, 38; (italics 
ours), except last two words; cf. Vol. Ill, p. 138; Vol. IV, pp. 364, 419; cf. Morgan, 
Ancient Society (New York, 1878), p. 530. Most of the contentions and troubles 
arising between Indians and white men have turned aroimd land cases, in which the 
rights of the two races have been the subjects of dispute. Cf. Reports of the Indian 
Rights Association (Philadelphia, Arch St., various dates), passim. 

* Doughty, Arabia Deserta (Cambridge), Vol. I, pp. 345, 318, 249. 



90 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

It was in this atmosphere that the nomadic ancestors of the 
Israehtes lived, moved, and had their being. The great 
bulk of those that settled in the highlands of Canaan retained 
their clan organization for a long time, and were forced to 
continue upon a very crude economic level. They carried 
some of their primitive social justice, or mishpat, clear through 
the times of the "Judges" and the highland kingdom under 
Saul; while after the estabUshment of the composite Hebrew 
monarchy under David, the more backward and remote classes 
in the nation were still greatly influenced by the ideas and 
practices of the desert ancestors. 

Having glanced at the tendencies which the nation got 
from the Israelite forefathers, we will now refer to the usages 
and ideas coming from the other side of its ancestry. The 
Amorites occupied the cross-roads of ancient Semitic civiliza- 
tion. Their social system was intimately connected with 
the usages of trade and commerce; and they had left the 
atmosphere of the desert clan far behind. The Amorites, 
like the Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, and Egyp- 
tians, had long ago reduced land to the category of private 
property. The civilized oriental believed in law, morals, 
justice, mishpat (whatever term we may use in this connec- 
tion); but his ideas about such things were a mystery to the 
more backward Semite of the desert and the hUls. All the 
long-settled and civiHzed races of the Semitic world regarded 
the soil as an item of commerce, falling within the general 
category of "property"; and they carried this principle to 
its logical issue, just as we do in the modern world. They 
bought, sold, and rented that which the nomad looked upon 
as the common foundation of life. They made the soil the 
basis of security for mortgage loans; and the nomad knew little 
about the mystery of mortgages, and abhorred what little 
he knew. They charged interest on mortgage loans; and 
the nomad thought all interest was wicked. Finally, when 



THE CONFLICTING STANDPOINTS 91 

mortgages were not paid, the civilized Semite foreclosed by 
legal process, taking over the property, and sometimes the 
person of the debtor; and at this point, the mind of the nomad 
ceased to follow the logic of the situation. While the Amo- 
rites were swallowed up in the mass of the Hebrew nation, 
their point of view, and the gods, or Baals, connected with 
that point of view, remained as factors in Hebrew life and 
history. 

Thus we see how two different standpoints confronted each 
other during the development of Hebrew nationality at the 
point of coalescence between Israelites and Amorites. It 
should be understood that the differences about landed prop- 
erty do not by any means exhaust the case between the 
morals of nomadism and civiHzation. The nature of the 
Hebrew struggle is disclosed only in part by the conflict over 
the proper treatment of land. For this is but one item in 
the whole circle of usages and ideas coming under the head of 
mishpat.^ 

' It can hardly be by accident that the Amorite Araunah, of Jerusalem, and the 
Hittite Ephron, of Hebron, readily dispose of their soil (II Sam., chap. 24; Gen., 
chap. 23), while, on the other hand, the Israelite peasant Naboth is greatly scandalized 
by Ahab's proposal to buy his patrimonial real-estate. " Yahwek forbid it me!" 
cries Naboth (I Kings 21:1-4). The differences of standpoint cropping out here can 
hardly be explained as arising from the particular situations. The drift of the Old 
Testament goes to show that the Israelites brought into the Hebrew nation the idea 
that the soil was inalienable; whereas, the Amorites, like the Babylonians and 
Egyptians, had left this idea behind, and regarded land as a lawful item of commerce- 
One of our critics attempts to make the point that the sentiment against alienation 
of land in Israel could not be an heirloom from nomadic days, because in the nomadic 
period there is no land to be alienated. But land is inherited in the nomadic state 
as much as under settled civihzation, though in a different way. Nomadic social 
groups are always identified with certain districts which the clan, or tribe, holds in 
common as its absolute property over against other groups. Thus, a given district 
is continuously "inherited" by the clan from itself. We find this usage among the 
desert Arabs, the AustraUan aborigines, the Germanic barbarians, the American 
Indians, etc. But as nomads pass over into civilization, there is no social machinery 
by which the soil can be administered as the common property of an entire clan; so 
the sense of identity with the soil contracts into the family groups whereof the clan is 
composed; and it becomes a crime, in the eyes of the more primitive classes in the 
community, to remove a neighbor's landmark. This feeling never operates perma- 



92 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

In the early narratives of the Hebrew social struggle, the land 
question is prominent. — According to the accounts in I Samuel, 
the "perversion" of mishpat was one of the causes that led to 
the setting-up of the Israelite monarchy itself. 

And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons 

judges over Israel And his sons walked not in his ways, but 

turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted mishpat. Then 
all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to 
Samuel unto Ramah; and they said unto him. Behold, thou art old, 
and thy sons walk not in thy ways. Now make us a king to judge us 
like all the nations (I Sam. 8: i, 3, 4, 5).^ 

In reply to their demand, the people are told that the 
social system, or mishpat, of the kingdom vdll not be satis- 
factory. The central feature of Samuel's warning is, that the 
king will take away the best of their fields, their vineyards, 
and their oliveyards, and give these lands to the nobles that 
surround the throne (vs. 14). Along with this, the people 
will be heavily taxed and reduced to slavery. In other words, 
we have here a picture of the concentration of landed property, 
in which the national soil comes into the grasp of the nobility. 
This, of course, involves the depression of an increasing num- 
ber of the people into the lower social class. It is this feature 
of the situation that the prophet Isaiah has in mind when he 

nently to stop the reduction of land to individual proprietorship, nor to overcome the 
concentration of the soil in the hands of an aristocracy. 

The process of land concentration had gone so far in Egypt and Babylonia during 
prehistoric times that when these countries emerge into the light of history their soil is 
already in the hands of a small upper class. (Cf. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt 
[Chicago, 1906], Vol. I, p. 259; Vol. II, pp. 6, 9, 277; Vol. IV, p. 405; and 
Goodspeed, History of the Babylonians and Assyrians [New York, 1906], pp. 71-78.) 

' I Sam., chap. 8, in its present shape, comes no doubt from a time later than that 
of Samuel; but it admirably summarizes one aspect of Hebrew history from first to 
last. The supposition is not in any way impossible that Samuel knew about the 
mishpat identified with the kings, or meleks, in the neighboring Amorite cities; and 
it is highly probable that he knew about the unhappy experience of Israel with the 
half-Amorite Abi-melek, of Shechem (Judg., chaps. 8 and 9). Samuel's prejudice 
against the term melek, together with family interest, would be sufficient to give a 
historical basis for the narrative in which he warns the people against the kingdom. 



THE CONFLICTING STANDPOINTS 93 

speaks of "them that join house to house, that lay field to 
field, till there be no room" (Isa. 5:8). And this will be 
the social system identified with king and kingdom. It will 
not be a mere matter of individual, or personal, wrong- 
doing. For the nobles, rulers, and kings, in their capacity 
as custodians of the law courts, will uphold the mishpat of 
commercial civilization, which the forefathers in the desert 
knew not. 

The conflict of standpoints must be held carefully in view in the 
present study. — Doughty tells of a quaint argument between 
one of the nomads and a townsman over the question, 
"Whether were nigher unto God the Kfe of townsfolk or 
of the Aarab" (wandering, Bedouin Arabs). ^ The contention 
of the nomad, of course, was in favor of his own class. For, 
according to his view, the dwellers in the Arabian desert were 
more righteous and "nearer to God" than the inhabitants of 
Arabian towns and cities like Mecca and Medina. A great 
deal may no doubt" be said for such a view. But, funda- 
mentally, human nature is precisely the same in both cases. 
The differences of practice and view arise largely out of differ- 
ences of external condition. The wandering life and the 
settled state respectively imply unlike institutions ; and these 
different social arrangements (or mishpats) give rise to unlike 
practices, and lead to conflicting ideas about what is right in 
a given situation.^ 

' Ibid., p. 228. 

* Writing on Arabia before Islam, Winckler says, "The feud between the Bedouins 

and the settled population was never checked The tribal organization, indeed, 

which lies at the root of the Bedouin life, was not abandoned as rapidly as the towns 
were captured." — HehnoWs History of the World (New York, 1903), Vol. Ill, pp. 
239-40. Hommel observes that " the Assyrian inscriptions of the eighth and seventh 
centuries B.C. mention a whole host of nomadic Aramean tribes who inhabited the 

narrow strip of desert between the Tigris and the Elamite highlands These 

Arameans would seem to have offered the same resistance to Babylonian civilization 
as was always displayed by the Bedouin Arab tribes in Palestine." — Ancient Hebrew 
Tradition (London, 1897), p. 206. See also Budde's "Nomadic Ideal," in the New 
World (Cambridge, Mass., 1895). 



94 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

The foregoing illustration from desert life agrees closely 
with what the Bible has to tell us about the practices and 
ideas of the Israelite clans after they left the Arabian wilder- 
ness. Some continued to be shepherds and cattlemen. Others 
became tillers of the soil. City life was monopolized, or 
pre-empted, by the Amorites, who held the strong, fortified 
places and the adjacent villages and fields, and melted slowly 
into the new population. Thus the hill dwellers in the Hebrew 
nation were shut away from the commercial and capitalistic 
standpoint; and they never developed an active, oriental city 
life down to the last. "The great mass of the people," as 
Kittel observes, "retained their simple ways and life, especially 
in the country and in small towns. "^ 

So we see that, although the distinction between Israelite 
and Amorite was at length wiped out, the social struggle 
unconsciously followed the original race lines. The moral 
codes of the city capitalist and the nomad were brought into 
active collision within the limits of one and the same social 
group. Two different standpoints were brought into sharp 
contrast in the development of the Hebrew nation. This 
fundamental variance comes to the surface over and over 
again. Thus, the social classes identified with the large 
centers of population are actively and uniformly opposed in 
the name of Yahweh, by the great literary prophets.^ Even 
the legends of the Hexateuch are strongly colored by the same 
reaction. Accordingly, when the children of men propose 
to build a city, Yahweh looks with no favor upon the enter- 
prise. "So Yahweh scattered them abroad from thence upon 
the face of all the earth; and they left off building the city" 
(Gen. II : 8). Abraham the nomad, who lives in tents, is the 
friend of Yahweh; but the Amorites, who live in the cities 
of Canaan, are very wicked; and when "the iniquity of the 

' Kittel, History of the Hebrews (London, 1896), Vol. II, p. 297. 
' We shall go into this more fully elsewhere in the present study. 



THE CONFLICTING STANDPOINTS 95 

Amorite is full," the descendants of Abraham shall possess the 
land (Gen. 15:12-15). Yahweh tells Abraham that the cities 
of Sodom and Gomorrah are so wicked that they must be 
destroyed. Abraham pleads for the preservation of Sodom 
if a few righteous men be found in it. But the cities are blotted 
out. We think at once how this old legend reflects the idea 
of the prophet Jeremiah: "Run ye to and fro through the 
streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the 
broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that 
doeth mishpal, that seeketh faithfulness; and I will pardon 
her" (Jer. 5:1). Yahweh accepts the offering of the shepherd 
Abel, who brings the sacrifice customary among nomads; while 
Cain, who brings the offering of the settled worker on the soil, 
is rejected (Gen., chap. 4). The Book of Genesis, being 
written at a late epoch, reflects the struggle of the prophets 
against the practices and ideas of their times. 

Hebrew national evolution differed slightly from that of 
other ancient peoples, and is directly connected with the reli- 
gious peculiarity of the Hebrews. — While we rpust hold the 
conflict of standpoints carefully in mind in the present study, 
we should realize that the economic struggle between civiliza- 
tion and nomadism was not peculiar to the Hebrews. It is 
not in the economics of the situation, but in the sociology — 
the group-development — that the distinction of the Hebrews 
comes into view. An illustration is useful here. While all 
the oak leaves in the world resemble each other, and conform 
to the same general pattern, yet no two oak leaves have ever 
been found exactly alike^ ^^he universe in which we live con- 
tains endless possibilities of new combinations, involving 
departure, or variation, from the rule. Thus, the great, 
fundamental facts of social evolution are everywhere the 
same; yet no two nations ever went through exactly the same 
social process. A slight variation, one way or another, is 
always to be found. Now, it is the "variations" that are of 



96 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

epoch-making importance in all processes of development. 
The rise and progress of the Hebrew national group was a 
little different from the social evolution of any other people, 
ancient or modern. We have previously referred to this con- 
sideration (cf. supra, pp. xxix-xxx) ; and we shall need to hold 
it prominently in mind in our sociological study of the Bible. 

Two instances arise at once for comparison, the Kassite 
conquest of Babylonia, and the Hyksos conquest of Egypt. 
In both cases there is an objective resemblance to the Israelite 
conquest of Canaan. For the Kassites and the Hyksos, like 
the Israelites, were primitive peoples who succeeded in con- 
quering settled and civilized races. But the sociological 
parallel ends here. The Kassites and Hyksos found group- 
mechanisms already established in Babylonia and Egypt; 
and the invaders were compelled to adapt themselves to the 
social structure of the conquered races. But in the case of the 
Israelites, it was the invaders, and not the earlier population, 
that supplied the national government and the national 
deity. A desert god was imported abruptly into the midst 
of civilization. 

As a result of this peculiar interweaving of circumstances, 
that part of the nation in which the Amorite tendency was the 
stronger wanted to worship the national god in the charac- 
ter of an ordinary, "civilized" Baal, who countenanced the 
social system of civilization, with its universal slavery and its 
disregard of the common man. But on the contrary, that 
part of the nation where the old Israelite tendency was the 
more powerful wanted to claim the national god as the patron 
of the old, brotherhood mishpat. One party was obstinately 
determined upon calling Yahweh a Baal; and the other party 
was equally determined upon maintaining the distinction be- 
tween the national god and the Baals of the Amorites. As a 
consequence, the evolution of Yahweh from a god of nomadism 
into a god of "civilization" was obstructed. The religious 



THE CONFLICTING STANDPOINTS 97 

development of the Hebrews issued in what is called a 
"cross-fertilization of culture," which avoided the vices of 
civilization and nomadism, and combined their virtues. 

The novelty of the situation lay in the fact that here, for the 
first time in human history, the struggle between social classes 
found a parallel in the contrast between religious traditions. 
The peculiar conflict of religious traditions gave expression to 
the social struggle and at length became the symbol of that 
struggle. In the midst of this deeply moving national experi- 
ence, the better Hebrew minds found the stimuli which prompted 
them to work out along a new line of thought.^ 

^ The scientific question here is distinct from the profounder problem of rehgion 
and theology; and the progress of research ought to make it increasingly so. From 
the scientific standpoint, the most that we can do is to discover the facts, and set 
them in their actual, historical relations to each other. Beyond this attempt, science 
may not go. For a scientific investigator to dogmatize about the metaphysical 
possibilities of the case is just as illiberal as the most narrow traditionalism of the 
old school. Let the facts, or categories, of Hebrew history be reduced to their barest 
and most rationaUstic terms; and we may, even then, hold without fear of contradic- 
tion that the personal God of the universe was at work within those terms, in a way 
that we cannot vmderstand any more than we can comprehend how our own per- 
sonality works within the terms of our daily experience. We know empirically that 
the facts of "personality" and "natural law" are imited; and this practical 
knowledge is virtually taken up by religious faith and thrown over into the field of 
universal being in the form of a postulate. The writer has made a statement of his 
position in the American Journal of Theology (Chicago), April, 1908. 



CHAPTER XI 
PEOPLES AND GODS IN THE JUDGES PERIOD 

The first experiences of the Israelites in Canaan. — The age of 
the Judges, or shophetim,'- extends from the Israehte invasion 
of the land up to the founding of the monarchy under Saul. 
Our chief source of information for this long stretch of time 
is the Book of Judges and the first eight chapters of I Samuel. 
This interesting period of history was a time of martial deeds 
and thriUing adventures. An atmosphere of romance hangs 
over it such as we find in the early tales of Rome, the Sagas 
of the Norsemen, and the Iliad of the Greeks. The figures 
of mighty heroes loom before us — Barak and Gideon and 
Jephthah and Samson and Samuel. Great men move to 
and fro through the shadows of that early era; and we feel 
the spell of its fascination as we turn the pages of the Bible 
story. 

Certain historical factors are projected into sharp relief in 
the Judges period, the Israelites and Yahweh; the Amorites and 
the Baals. — On the one side are the Israelite clans, in the hill- 
country and extending out in the direction of the wilderness 
on the east and south. On the other side are the Amorites, 
chiefly in the lowlands, holding the strong, fortified cities and 
the adjacent villages and fields. These two peoples lived in 
proximity for some time before they came under the cover of 
one political roof and melted into the social organism of the 
Hebrew nation. 

In the same way, the cults of these two peoples were entirely 
distinct at the outset. The worship of Yahweh was identified 

I Pronounced, sho-fet-eew. The final syllable is the mascuhne plural, and takes 
the accent. Compare "cherub" and "cherubim." 



PEOPLES AND GODS IN THE JUDGES PERIOD 



99 



with the Israelites and their social usages. Likewise, the 
worship of the Baals was identified with the Amorites and 
their usages, having been practiced in the land of Canaan time 
out of mind. In brief, just as there was a distinction between 
the two peoples in the early history, so there was an equally 
sharp distinction between their gods. 

Hostility between Yahweh and Baal is connected with antago- 
nism between Israelite and Amorite. — "Ye shall not fear the 
gods of the Amorites in whose land ye dwell" (Judg. 6:io). 
The characteristic warfare between religious worships in the 
Bible is not between that of Yahweh and that of the Babylo- 
nian Marduk, or the Egyptian Amon, or the Assyrian Ashur. 
On the contrary, as everyone will remember who has read the 
Bible carefully, the great, outstanding struggle is between 
Yahweh and the neighboring Baals. Now these deities are 
precisely the gods of the races that were brought into hostile 
contact by the Israelite invasion of Canaan. "The contest 
with the Canaanite religion," as Marti says, "naturally 
played an important part in the struggle for the possession of 
the country."' First and last, the Baals are the divinities 
against which the champions of Yahweh spend their force. 
The local Baals of Canaan are, so to speak, the villains in the 
mighty drama of the Bible. The term Baal, in fact, becomes a 
characteristic mark of antagonism to Yahweh; and it survives 
in the New Testament and in Christian theology in the name 
of God's great adversary, Beelzebub, "the prince of devils."^ 

The Book of Judges unrolls a dramatic picture before us: 
Two races are on the stage. Two series of hostile social groups 
are placed over against each other in the same small territory 

' Marti, The Religion of the Old Testament (London, 1907), p. 98. 

*Cf. Matt. 10:25; 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22; Luke 16:15, 18,19. Baal-zebub was 
god of the Philistine city of Ekron, adjacent to Israelite territory. Cf. II Kings 
1:2, 3, 6, 16. The Philistines were active enemies of Israel for many years. We 
cannot discover by what obscure association of ideas this particular Baal condensed 
within himself the leadership in the "opposition" to Yahweh. 



loo SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

—the one chiefly in the highlands; the other chiefly in the 
lowlands. At that period of human history, politics and 
religion were closely connected. Church and State were simply 
the obverse and reverse aspects of the same thing. The gods 
were looked upon as members of the social groups that wor- 
shiped them; and in all matters of importance the gods were 
consulted by casting lots or otherwise. In view of this inti- 
macy between religion and politics, the hostility of social 
groups against each other drew along with it the antagonism 
of the respective gods. Herein we find one of the sources of 
the idea of "war between the gods." In the Ught of this 
consideration, the meaning of the title the "Book of the 
Wars of Yahweh" is not mysterious (Num. 21:14). For the 
battles of Israel are actually called "Yahweh's battles" 
(I Sam. 18:17; 25:28). In harmony with this principle, 
during the wars between Rome and Carthage, Hannibal the 
Carthaginian stood before the altar of his ancestral god and 
swore eternal hatred for the people and the gods of Rome. In 
the story of David and Goliath, we read that the PhiHstine 
cursed David by his gods; while David replied that he came 
in the name of Yahweh of hosts, the god of the armies of 
Israel. Thus we see that there is nothing unusual about 
the mere idea of rivalry, or antagonism, between Yahweh 
and the Baals as involved in the hostility between Israelites 
and Amorites. This, however, is only a small part of the story; 
for these gods already symbolized the clashing standpoints 
of nomadism and civilization.^ 

' The Israelites may possibly have had memories of a reaction against the gods 
and the usages of Eg3T)t; but our best point of departure in the present study is the 
Judges period, which lies more clearly in the light of history than the far-away times 
contemplated by the Hexateuch. In any case, we begin with cultural and military 
antagonism between social groups. The references to Egypt in the earlier narratives 
of the Old Testament are scanty and uncertain. The Egyptian bondage is discussed 
only in later documents, such as those of Exodus, which are heavily encrusted with 
miracle (cf. chap, iv, "The Making of the Old Testament"). We have already seen 
that the Hexateuch views the origin of the Hebrew nation, and the Israelite con- 
quest of Canaan, out of their true historical relations (cf. chap. ii). 



PEOPLES AND GODS IN THE JUDGES PERIOD loi 

The Yahweh-Baal conflict in the Judges period stands in iso- 
lation from the later, "prophetic" struggle against Baal worship. — 
The clash between the cults of Yahweh and the Baals is 
noticed widely throughout the Old Testament; but at this 
early point in our study, it becomes our duty to emphasize 
that the references to the struggle have a peculiar distribu- 
tion corresponding to the peculiar national experience around 
which the Bible turns. 

Thus, a number of passages occur in the Book of Judges, 
and the opening chapters of I Samuel, with reference to 
Israelite reaction against the cults of the Amorites. These 
passages begin with Judg. 2 :ii, and end with I Sam. 7 14. 
While they admit the compromise of Israel with the cults of 
the Baals, they put stress upon the rejection of BaaHsm by the 
Israelites. According to the final notice in the series, the 
children of Israel put away the Baals and served Yahweh 
only. It should be emphasized that all these passages refer 
to the period before the Israelites and Amorites united to form 
the Hebrew nation. Having laid stress upon this fact, the 
importance of which will become clear as our study proceeds, 
we go on to point out another equally striking considera- 
tion. And this is, that setting out from the last of the notices 
referred to (I Sam. 7 14), we read forward in Samuel and Kings 
through an expanse of two thousand verses, representing a 
period of about two centuries, in which there is no reference 
to the gods of the Amorites. At the end of this period, the 
prophet Elijah suddenly comes before King Ahab, saying, 
"Thou hast followed the Baals" (I Kings 18:18). A little 
farther on we read that Ahab "did very abominably in follow- 
ing idols, according to all that the Amorites did" (I Kings 
21:26). From this point onward in Kings we hear a great 
deal about the Yahweh-Baal struggle. It may be asked now. 
Upon what principle is this peculiar distribution of notices 
determined ? This question will go with us. 



I02 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

In the meanwhile, stepping outside the Judges-Samuel- 
Kings narratives, we find equally striking facts in the writings 
of the prophets who came after Elijah. This great prophet 
was followed in the next century (the eighth) by Hosea, who 
also worked in the Northern Kingdom; and the book ascribed 
to Hosea puts the opposition between Yahweh and the Baals 
into the foreground of its treatment. On the other hand, 
the books of Amos, Micah, and Isaiah (prophets who lived in 
Judah, the Southern Kingdom, during the same century wdth 
Hosea) have nothing to say about the Baals! But coming 
down to Jeremiah, who worked in Judah in the seventh and 
sixth centuries, we find the same stress upon the Baals that 
appears in Hosea! What is the basis of these phenomena? 
Is it a mere matter of individual genius ? or does it stand in 
the historical situation? This question is an item in the 
problem raised by the distribution of Baal-emphasis in the 
Judges-Samuel-Kings documents.^ 

The Deuteronomic view of the Yahweh-Baal conflict in the 
Judges period. — According to the Deuteronomic editor, whose 
hand is visible in the Book of Judges and as far as I Sam. 7:4, 
the early history of Israel was marked by repeated compromise 
with Amorite Baalism, followed in each case by sharp reaction 
against it. Upon this view, the pre-national experience of 
Israel in Canaan resolved itself into recurring cycles which are 
described in a general way by the Deuteronomist as follows : 

(i) Baalism 
And the children of Israel did that which was evil in the sight of 
Yahweh, and served the Baals. And they forsook Yahweh, the god of 
their fathers, who brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed 
other gods, of the gods of the peoples that were round about them, and 
bowed themselves down unto them (Judg. 2:11 f.). 

' The Book of Deuteronomy is intensely preoccupied with the struggle of Yahweh 
against "other gods"; and it scarcely uses the term Baal. Nevertheless, as the con- 
text shows, it is the local gods of the Amorites that are chiefly in the writer's mind. 
See Deut. 6: 14, 15, and 12 : 2, 3, 29-31, and 31 : 16. We shall recur to Deuteronomy in 
a later part of our study. 



PEOPLES AND GODS IN THE JUDGES PERIOD 103 

(2) Punishment 

And the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel; and he delivered 
them into the hands of spoilers that spoiled them. And he sold them 
into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not 
any longer stand before their enemies (vs. 14). 

(3) Deliverance 

And Yahweh raised up judges who saved them out of the hand of 

those that spoiled them And when Yahweh raised them up 

judges, then Yahweh was with the judge, and saved them out of the 
hand of their enemies all the days of the judge (vss. 16, 18). 

According to this interpretation, the Judges period resolved 
itself into successive cycles of Baalism, Punishment, and 
Deliverance ; and in the final notice of the series we read that 
Israel put away the Baals and served Yahweh only (I Sam. 
7:4). // these recurring suppressions of Amorite Baalism be 
literal history, then there is no difficulty about the initial stage 
of the religious process in Canaan: the tradition of Yahweh 's 
hostility against the local Baals runs parallel to the antagonism 
between social groups and gives expression to group-hostility. 

But the editor whose comments are inserted in the books 
of Judges and Samuel, views that period from the standpoint 
of the Book of Deuteronomy, which was first published a 
generation before the Babylonian exile. In that important 
work, the penalty for worshiping other gods is all kinds of 
misfortune (Deut. 11:26-29; 28:14-68). Among other evils, 
"Yahweh will cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies. 
Thou shalt go out one way against them, and shalt flee seven 
ways before them" (28:25). Looking at the traditions and 
stories coming down from the Judges period, the Deuteronomic 
editor finds that his ancestors were afflicted and oppressed by 
foreigners, and that they were delivered by warlike leaders, 
who rallied them to battle in the name of Yahweh. In har- 
mony with the Deuteronomic ideas, he reasons that the early 
Israelites could not have had misfortune unless they had for- 
gotten Yahweh and served other gods. He therefore draws 



I04 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

the inference that the periodical oppressions of early Israel 
constitute first-class evidence of Baalism. Accordingly, he 
brings together a number of old Israelite stories about the 
Judges period, and connects these interesting stories by com- 
ments of his own, which are obviously far later than the 
stories themselves; and the result is the Book of Judges, 
which was prepared at a late period as a work of religious 
edification. In the general introduction to his book (from 
which we have already quoted, supra), the editor states the 
philosophy of the Judges period as an oscillation between 
Yahwism and Baalism; and whenever he sees an opportunity, 
he inserts the formula, "Now the children of Israel did evU 

in the sight of Yahweh, and served the Baals Then 

they were oppressed [by such and such a people] 

Then they were delivered [by so and so]."^ These editorial 
observations constitute what modern scholars call the "frame- 
work," the original narratives being compressed within the 
framework. The method of the Deuteronomic editor of 
Judges is perfectly clear; but his results are doubtful. 

The sociological view of the Yahweh-Baal conflict in the Judges 
period. — The stories in the books of Judges and Samuel are 
interspersed by eight editorial notices in which the Israelites 
are said to have gone over to the worship of the Amorite 
Baals.^ But it should be distinctly understood that in five 
out of these eight cases there is absolutely no reference to 
any connection between the Israelites and the Amorites; 
while in the remaining cases, although the two peoples are 
in contact, the prevailing atmosphere is that of ahenation 
and war between them.^ In other words, wherever there is 

' This description will serve in a general way to represent the modem critical 
view of Judges; but the book itself shows that the process by which it reached its 
present form was even more complex. 

Mi) Judg 3:7f.; (2)3:i2f.; (3)4:if.; (4)6:if.; (5)8:33f.; (6)io:6f.; 
(7) 13:1 f-; (8) I Sam. 7:4. 

3Nos. 3, 4, and 5 in the preceding note. In No. 3, the IsraeUtes defeat the 
Amontes at Esdraelon; in No. 4, the two peoples are alien; and in No. 5, although 
there is a temporary understandmg, the Israelites finally destroy the Amorites of 



PEOPLES AND GODS IN THE JUDGES PERIOD 105 

an opportunity to study the local situation, as concerns the 
Israelites and Amorites, the two peoples are still sundered 
by hatred. In spite of the sweeping editorial statement that 
the Israelites promptly intermarried with the inhabitants of 
Canaan (Judg. 3:5, 6), we find only one illustration, and that 
a case of the long-distance, or sadika, marriage, in which the 
woman remains with her own people apart from her husband 
(Judg. 8:31). The actual circumstances of the pre-national 
period could hardly have been so regular and systematic as 
the editor of Judges and Samuel supposes. While there was 
undoubtedly a certain measure of accommodation between 
the newer and older inhabitants ; and while some of the Israel- 
ites may have worshiped the Baals during this period; the 
outstanding feature of the Judges epoch is the hostile contact 
of alien social groups. Hence, no matter how much there may 
be in the Deuteronomic idea of a recurrent " putting-away " 
of the Amorite gods, the tradition of Yahweh's early enmity 
against the local Baals is chiefly attested and guaranteed by 
the principle of group-antagonism. 

A tabular exhibit of collisions between Israelites and Amo- 
rites in the Judges period, and extending into the time of the 
early monarchy, is instructive : 

TABLE I 

Amorites Vanquished by Israel 



Amorites of Hebron (Judg. i : 10) 

" Kiriath-sepher (Judg. 1:11-15) 

" Zephath (Judg. 1:17) 

" Beth-el (Judg. 1:22-26) 

" Shechem (Judg. 9:45) 

" Laish (Judg. 18:27) 

under Sisera (Judg., chaps. 4 and 5) 



Shechem. Kittel writes, "It is noteworthy that the statements [about Baal wor- 
ship] are confined exclusively to these late narrators. Accordingly there are remark- 
ably few concrete facts adduced in support of them." — History of the Hebrews 
(London, 1888), Vol. II, pp. 97, 98. Kautsch says, "The picture which the Deute- 
ronomic redactor of the Book of Judges sketches .... is not true to the historical 
reality." — Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (ext. vol.), p. 645. 



io6 



SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 







TABLE II 




RIl 


ES Unconquered, but Later Fused with 


I 


Amorites of Beth-shean 


(Judg. 


1:27) 


2 




' Taanach 


u 


a 


3 




' Dor 


u 


u 


4 




' Ibleam 


u 


u 


5 




' Megiddo 


<£ 


a 


6 




' Ggzgr 


(Judg. 


1:29) 


7 




' Kitron 


(Judg. 


1:30) 


8 




' Nahalol 


u 


a 


9 




' A ceo 


(Judg. 


1:31) 


lO 




' ^Ma6 


u 


a 


II 




' Achzib 


u 


<< 


12 




' Helbah 


a 


<c 


13 




' ^/>M^ 


a 


u 


14 




' 7?e/?o6 


a 


<c 


IS 




' Beth-shemesh 


(Judg. 


1:33) 


i6 




' Beth-anath 


a 


a 


17 




' fl^erg^ 


(Judg. 


1-34,35) 


i8 




' Aijalon 


a 


11 


19 




' Shaalbim 


a 


cc 


20 




' Hazor 


(Judg. 


4:17) 


21 




' Jerusalem 


(Judg. 


19:10-12) 


22 




' Gibeon 


(II Sam. 21:1-2) 



From these tables it will be seen that the original victories 
over the Amorites were confined to the hill-country. The 
larger part of the earlier inhabitants were, indeed, uncon- 
quered by the Israelites.^ 

' In this connection, it is important to notice that all the sanctuaries of Yahweh 
that are "authenticated" by the Book of Genesis are in the field of the first and 
smaller, table, being found in the highlands (Gen. 12:6; 12:8; 13:18; 21:33; 26:23- 
25; 28:18-19; 32:30-31; 33:18-20; 35:1, 14, 15; 46:1). The first book of the 
Old Testament is frequently referred to in a general and vague way as evidence that 
the sanctuaries "taken over" by Israel from the Amorites were later believed to have 
been the scene of Yahweh theophanies diuring patriarchal times. In reality, Genesis 
agrees with Judges in respect of the partial nature of the conquest. The Genesis 
legends confine themselves to a few places in the hill-country; and, excepting the 
story of Melchizedek, the patriarchal stories are not brought into connection with 
the strong, walled cities of Table II. This is a good indication of the trustworthy 
character of the stories in Genesis; but it gives no support to modern theories of a 
wholesale validation of Amorite shrines by Hebrew tradition. 



PEOPLES AND GODS IN THE JUDGES PERIOD 107 

All the leading Israelites in the Judges period were men of 
the hill-country. — In accordance with the limited nature of the 
Israelite conquest, the chiefs and heroes of the Judges period 
were invariably men of the uplands. Thus, Othniel was 
connected with the clan of Caleb in the hills of Judah. Ehud 
lived in the highlands of Ephraim. Here also dwelt the 
famous Deborah, in whose day the Amorites gathered them- 
selves together to make one last, mighty struggle before 
acquiescing in Israel's presence. A great battle took place 
in the plain of Esdraelon. Two accounts of this action have 
come down to us, the one in prose (Judg., chap. 4), the other 
in poetry (Judg., chap. 5, the "Deborah Song"). In the 
latter account, we see that the Israelites had no national 
organization at this time. Only five of their clans are men- 
tioned as being represented in the army (Judg. 5:14, 15); 
while five other Israelite clans are blacklisted "because they 
came not to the help of Yahweh against the mighty" 
(vss. 15-17, 23). 

The great battle at Esdraelon left the distribution of the 
two races unchanged; but it confirmed the title of the Israel- 
ite clans to the hill-country. So, as we continue onward in 
the Book of Judges, the hero Gideon is found in the little 
village of Ophrah in the hills of Ephraim. Tola dwells also 
in the same region. Jair and Jephthah are located in the hills 
of Gilead. Ibzan is at Bethlehem, in the hills of Judah. 
Abdon is an Ephraimite. Samson lives in the village of 
Zorah, which lies on a hill west of Jerusalem. After the 
Samson stories, the remaining chapters of Judges take us 
once more through the hills of Ephraim. The attitude of 
these hill clans toward the Amorite settlements finds a good 
illustration in the case of a certain Levite. Without going 
into the preliminary details, we quote: 

He rose up and departed, and came over against Jebus (the same as 
Jerusalem) When they were by Jebus, the day was far spent. 



io8 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

And the slave said unto his master, Come, I pray you, and let us turn 
aside into this city of the Jebusites, and lodge in it. And his master 
said unto him, We will not turn aside into the city of a foreigner that is not 
of the children of Israel; but we will pass over to Gibeah .... and we 
will lodge in Gibeah or in Ramah (Judg. 19: 10-13; italics ours). 

The city of Jerusalem is bound up so closely with the name 
of Israel that this passage comes before the reader for the 
first time with the efifect of a shock. Here we discover this 
well-known place to be a foreign city far down in the Judges 
period, long after the Israelites had settled in Canaan. Here 
it stands amid the shadows of advancing night. As the sun 
sinks in the west, the city walls rise, black and forbidding, in 
front of the travelers. The Israelite will not trust himself 
to lodge there, so he continues on through the footpaths in 
the hiUs as the darkness faUs. The highlands, then as now, 
stood round about Jerusalem. The Jebusite inhabitants of 
the city were merely a branch of the Amorites. This is 
remembered by the prophet Ezekiel when he writes, "Thus 
saith the lord Yahweh to Jerusalem, Thine origin and thy 
nativity is of the land of the Canaanite. The Amorite was 
thy father" (Ezek. 16:3, 45; italics ours).' 

The only attempt at political union between Israelites and 
Amorites in the Judges period was a failiure. — The early chap- 
ters of Judges contain the well-known tales about the hero 
Gideon (chaps. 6 ff.). The stories relating to Gideon and his 
son Abimelek are in some confusion; but the sociological 
factors are quite certain. On the one hand was the IsraeHte 
clan of Abiezer, living in the hills of Ephraim, with their 
headquarters at the village of Ophrah. They were farmers 
and shepherds, depending upon their fields and cattle for a 
living. On the other hand, in the valley below Ophrah, was 
the Amorite city of Shechem, whose inhabitants depended 

^ The terms Canaanite and Amorite are used in the same sense by different Old 
Testament writers; and we shall employ the shorter term as far as possible in the 
present study. 



PEOPLES AND GODS IN THE JUDGES PERIOD 109 

in part upon the fertile fields outside the city, and in part 
upon the commerce that flowed through their valley. 

An adjustment of some kind was arranged between Gideon's 
Israelites and the Amorites of Shechem. The leading men on 
both sides reached an understanding. Gideon took a secon- 
dary wife, or concubine, from one of the families of Shechem — 
a kind of "state-marriage"; and the woman remained with 
her own folk in the city. Both Israelites and Amorites 
worshiped the same divinity, who was known as the god, or 
master of the "covenant" (berith, Judg. 8:33; 9:46). The 
covenant church was near Shechem. Gideon had considerable 
influence among the Israelites in central Ephraim. When the 
Midianites from the desert came up against the land after the 
manner of Israel at an earlier day, " Gideon sent messengers 
throughout all the hill-country of Ephraim, saying. Come 
down against Midian" (7:24). He fought these invaders 
from the wilderness of Arabia not only on behalf of Israel, 
but on behalf of the Amorites of Shechem as well (9:17). 

It is impossible to discover just what kind of an understand- 
ing existed between the two peoples. Whatever it was, the 
political power of Gideon was of sufficient importance to 
become the subject of dispute after his death. On the sur- 
face, the controversy was a personal quarrel ; but the question 
at issue was whether the seat of government should continue 
in the hands of Gideon's family at Ophrah, or whether the 
government should be in the hands of the Amorites at Shechem. 
In order to accomplish their purpose, the Amorites made use 
of Abimelek, the son of Gideon's concubine. He was given a 
fund, or subsidy, out of the church treasury, "wherewith 
Abimelek hired vain and light fellows, who followed him. 
And he went unto his father's house in Ophrah, and slew his 
brethren .... three-score and ten persons" (9: if.). This 
put the balance of power into the hands of the Amorites, 
leaving them in possession of the only living heir of Gideon. 



no 



SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 



Accordingly, "all the men of Shechem assembled themselves 
together .... and went and made Abimelek king by the 

oak of the pillar that was in Shechem And Abimelek 

was prince over Israel three years" (9:6, 22). This is a very 
noteworthy situation. The Amorite voters elected a king 
who reigned not only over Shechem but over the Israelites 
in the hills near the city. What we have here, of course, is 
merely a local kingdom in the heart of Ephraim. Abimelek 
did not rule over "all Israel"; but even so, the experiment is 
highly instructive and full of meaning. 

Judging by the brief reign of Abimelek, the rule of the city 
of Shechem could not have been very stable. For trouble 
soon arose between the Shechemites and their half-breed ruler. 
The king withdrew his residence, and put the city in charge 
of a lieutenant. Abimelek was now repudiated by the same 
Shechemite aristocracy that had elevated him to the throne. 
After this, Abimelek made terms with the Israelites, led them 
against the Amorites, and reduced the city of Shechem to 

ruins. "And Abimelek fought against the city And 

he took the city, and slew all the people that were therein. 
And he beat down the city and sowed it with salt" (9:45). 
Moreover, he burned the great Tower of Shechem, which was 
outside the city, "so that aU the men of the Tower of Shechem 
died also, about a thousand men and women" (vs. 49). Carry- 
ing the war to another Amorite city in the neighborhood, he 
met his death; "and when all the men of Israel saw that 
Abimelek was dead, they departed every man unto his place" 
(vs. SS)" 

Thus we see that the only attempt at political union 
between Israelites and Amorite? in the Judges period was a 
disastrous failure. The dark outcome of the kingdom of 

' An echo of this situation is found in the traditions of Genesis (chap. 34). The 
Amorites of Shechem enter into covenant with the Israelites; but the covenant is 
broken by Simeon and Levi, who go into the city and miurder all the male Shechemites. 



PEOPLES AND GODS IN THE JUDGES PERIOD in 

Shechem seems to have discouraged experiments in state- 
making for a long time afterward. Each side had been 
treacherous and brutal. When the awful story was noised 
about the land, it could hardly have been a factor in softening 
race-hatreds. Israelites would be afraid to trust Amorites, 
because the men of Shechem had subsidized the slaughter of 
Gideon's family at Ophrah. On the other hand, Amorites 
would be afraid to trust Israelites, because Gideon's clan had 
wiped out the city of Shechem. 

During the Judges period, the Israelites remained in the clan 
stage of social development. — The primitive social organiza- 
tion of Israel was continued through the Judges period. 
Although the outward aspects of society in this epoch were 
barbaric and rough, the internal aspects of life, as touching 
the relations of the men of a clan to each other, had a strong 
moral quality. Those who treat the age as a time in which 
there was no organization of the moral feelings, do so from 
the standpoint of our advanced modern conscience. For no 
social group is ever without ethical feelings embodied in its 
usages; and no ancient clan could maintain its integrity with- 
out customary laws and regulations to which powerful moral 
sentiments attached.^ 

The Israelites of the Judges period were forced to keep up 
their clan organizations by the pressure of their enemies the 
Amorites, Moabites, Midianites, Philistines, etc. (Judg., chaps. 
I, 4, 5, 6, 7, lo, II, 15, 20; I Sam., chaps. 4, 5, 6, 7). It was 
by means of their clan solidarity that the Israelites were able 
to cope with enemies and occasionally to fight with each other. 
The sentiment of loyalty to the clan group, and the feeling 
of mutual duty among the members of the fellowship, were 
some of the great ruling forces of society in the pre-national 

'The expression with which the Book of Judges comes to an end, "Every man 
did that which was right in his own eyes," is the statement of a late compiler, and is at 
variance with the clear testimony of the fundamental, early documents inclosed 
within the editorial framework. 



112 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

epoch. It was along this route that the doctrine of human 
brotherhood passed through the course of its evolution from 
its narrow beginnings in blood-revenge up to the parable of 
the Good Samaritan. It was the feeling of outraged brother- 
hood that nerved Gideon to retaliate upon the Midianites for 
the death of his kinsmen: "They were my brethren, the 
sons of my mother" (Judg. 8:19). The Benjamites were 
attacked by a coalition of other Israelite clans because they 
refused to give up their brethren for punishment (Judg. 20: 
12-14).^ 

Yahweh in the Judges period remained a god of the primitive, 
brotherhood "mishpat." — We have seen that religion and politics 
are always identified in ancient society, and that all social 
customs and usages fall under the purview of the gods (chaps, 
viii, X, supra). The mishpat of Israel in the nomadic, desert 
life was connected with Yahweh as a matter of course; and 
this whole circle of primitive law and morality (with modifica- 
tions due to the changed environment) continued to be 
identified mth Yahweh throughout the Judges period. The 
judge administered his office in the name of Yahweh. The 
clan courts regularly dispensed mishpat at this time (Judg. 
3:10; 4:4, 5; 10:3; 12:7, 9, II, 13, 14; I Sam. 7:15-17); 
and it was the corruption of the courts, and the "perversion"' 
of mishpat, that led, among other causes, to the popular 
demand for a king (I Sam. 8:1-5). The judge was kno\^Ti in 
the Hebrew language as a shophet. His act of judgment was 
expressed by shaphat; while the usages to which he referred as 
precedents were designated by the now familiar word mishpat ^ 
which is derived from the same root as the other tw^o terms. 

' It is to be noticed that the original circumstance around which the situation 
turns is the maltreatment and murder of a woman of the clan of Judah by certain 
Benjamites (Judg. 19: i, 2 f.). A number of hill clans thereupon unite in a demand 
upon the murderers' clan for their punishment. This is refused by the Benjamites, 
who thus become partners with the murderers. The ensuing attack on the clan of 
Benjamin is led by the woman's own people (Judg. 20:18). 



PEOPLES AND GODS IN THE JUDGES PERIOD 113 

The Judges period as a whole has an important place in 
the development of Bible religion. Yahweh, the god of the 
brotherhood mishpat, was clearly set off in contrast with the 
local Baals of the Amorites. This initial emphasis upon the 
distinction between the gods would have been lost if the Israel- 
ites had all promptly settled down, and adopted the gods and 
the standpoint of advanced, oriental civilization. Although 
at a subsequent period the worship of Yahweh was brought 
more closely into contact with the cults of the local deities, 
the historical memories of the Judges epoch, charged with the 
idea of Yahweh's distinction from the gods of the land, influ- 
enced the mind of later generations.' 

At the close of the Judges period there was a treaty of peace 
between Israelites and Amorites. — As the time of the monarchy 
draws near, there comes before us a highly significant notice 
touching the relations between the newer and the older inhabi- 
tants of Canaan, This notice occurs in the midst of the dis- 
joined stories about the Philistine wars, and is as follows: 
^^And there was peace between Israel and the Amorites'' (I Sam. 
7:14). The two races were thus laying aside their hatred, 
and making treaties of peace. With this happy suggestion 
of concord, the age of the Judges draws on to a close. 

^ The name Jerubbaal, identified with Gideon, has been cited to show that the 
term Baal was applied to Yahweh at this time. But there are many more instances 
of names containing Yahweh than there are of names containing Baal. Gideon 
himself had a son whose name was Jotham (Judg. 9:5). The name Jonathan, meaning 
"Yahweh has given," was borne by a Danite priest (Judg. 18:30). The sons of 
Samuel were called Joel and Abijah, signifying respectively "Yahweh is god" and 
"Yahweh is father" (I Sam. 8:2). 



CHAPTER XTI 

SAUL'S KINGDOM IN THE HILLS 

The Israelite monarchy was at first a highland organization, 
having no capital city, and standing apart from the Amorites. — 
One of the forces leading to the development of the Hebrew 
nation was the pressure of hostile groups outside the territory 
of Israel. Chief among these were the Philistines. In the 
same way, the American colonies were brought together by 
the pressure of England. Likewise, Germany was consolidated 
by the hostility of Austria and France. This principle is of 
wide application in the development of social groups. Saul's 
kingdom was an Israelite undertaking, carried through with- 
out reference to the Amorites. This was in sharp contrast 
with the earlier movement under Abimelek, in which the two 
races came together, but failed to make a permanent organiza- 
tion. The kingdom of Abimelek was, indeed, an abortive 
undertaking, " born out of due time." But Saul's kingdom was 
a less ambitious project than Abimelek's, for it was limited to 
the Israelite clans of the hill-country. Abimelek had his 
capital in the Amorite walled city of Shechem; but the simple 
headquarters of Saul were at a country village in the Israelite 
highlands. Although a treaty of peace had been recently 
made between the two races, the hour for their union had not 
yet struck. The kingdom of Saul is interestingly treated by 
the First Book of Samuel, from chap. 8 forward to the close 
of the book. 

The peace treaty with the Amorites was broken by King Saul. — 
The first Israelite king was unable to overcome his prejudice 
against the Amorite, as the following passage indicates: 
"Now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but 

114 



SAUL'S KINGDOM IN THE HILLS 115 

of the remnant of the Amorites. And the children of Israel 
had sworn unto them. But Saul sought to slay them in his 
zeal for the children of Israel and Judah" (II Sam. 21:2).^ 
The perfidy of Saul and his followers had, of course, the effect 
of delaying the union of the races. Once more the news of 
Israelite \indictiveness was carried through the lowlands, and 
heard by the Amorites with horror. The Israelite clans had 
begun the trouble in the first place by attacking the country 
and seizing the highlands (Judg., chap. i). The feud had 
been emphasized by the great Deborah battle at Esdraelon 
(Judg., chaps. 4 and 5). The Israelites had been faithless to 
their covenant and burned Shechem (Judg., chap. 9; Gen., 
chap. 34). They had also destroyed the city of Laish (Judg., 
chap. 18). And now, in disregard of a solemn treaty, their 
king had led an attack on Gibeon (II Sam., chap. 21). The 
peace covenant between the two races did, indeed, pave the 
way for constructive results; but Saul was not the kind of 
statesman to deal with the problem. 

The Philistine policy was to break Saul's kingdom, and to 
hold the Israelites and Amorites apart. — The progress of the 
national movement in Israel interested the Philistines greatly, 
for they dreaded the rise of a strong neighboring state. They 
did not approve of the highland kingdom under Saul; and they 
looked with apprehension upon the peace treaty between 
Israel and the Amorites. Hence the Philistines once more 
took the field against the highlanders, and shattered the power 
of Saul decisively at .he battle of Gilboa. The scene was 
a memorable one, long talked about at the firesides of Israel. 
Gilboa stands among the northern hills of Ephraim, abutting 
upon the plain of Esdraelon; and in the important action 
occurring at this place, King Saul and his three sons were slain. 

' This violation of the treaty seems to have been more extensive than at first 
appears. The city of Gibeon was in league with a number of Amorite places, among 
which was Beeroth (Josh. 9:17). It is said that "the Beerothites fled to Gittaim," 
and that two of the Beerothites murdered one of Saul's grandsons (II Sam. 4:1-7). 



ii6 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

A fact of large meaning is found in the treatment of the 
royal corpses by the Philistines. The victors carried the 
bodies of Saul and his sons across the eastern end of the plain, 
and fastened them to the wall of the Amorite city of Beth-shan 
(I Sam. 31:8-10). This important city was one of the many 
fortified places which the TsraeHtes had failed to reduce at the 
time of the original invasion (Judg. 1:27; see Table II, p. 106). 
Beth-shan had stood behind its fortifications, grim and hostile, 
through the rough times of the Judges period; and the feelings 
of its people must have been very mixed as they saw the 
Philistines draw near and fasten the corpses of the Israelite 
royal family to the city wall. By this act, the Philistines 
virtually said to the Amorites: "When you make treaties with 
Israel, you are dealing wi^h a people who are too weak to 
defend themselves, and who will not respect their treaty 
obligations." 

The Israelite outlook was very dark when the star of Saul's 
kingdom sank in the dust of Gilboa. 

In the period of the highland kingdom, Yahweh remained a 
local deity; and the hill-country became his "inheritance." — 
The Israelite view of Yahweh in this epoch is interestingly 
shown by certain words attributed to David when he fled 
away from the anger of King Saul: "They have driven me 
out this day that I should not cleave unto the inheritance of 
Yahweh, sa5dng. Go, serve other gods. Now therefore, let 
not my blood f aU to the earth away from the presence of Yah- 
weh'^ (I Sam. 26:19-20). In this passage the hill-country 
has become the "inheritance of Yahweh." To leave the 
highlands of Israel was to go into the territory of "other gods," 
who must be served by aU persons that entered their domains. 
To depart from Israel was thus the same as going away from 
the "presence," or the "face," of Yahweh.^ 

== The American Revised Version translates the passage from David as we give it; 
but the King James Version translates it in words that are out of sympathy with the 
meaning of the Hebrew and the sense of the context. 



SAUL'S KINGDOM IN THE HILLS 117 

In the reign of Saul, Yahweh continued to be identified with 
the "mishpat" of the clan brotherhood. — The highland kingdom 
was little more than a loose, weak federation; and in spite of 
their national movement, the IsraeHtes remained in the clan 
stage of progress all through the reign of Saul. In brief, they 
had not yet come to terms with civilization in general, nor 
with Amorite civilization in particular. This primitive com- 
munity, with its ideas of what was "right" between man 
and man, worshiped Yahweh as its divine patron and the 
judge of its morahty. Thus we see that three successive 
historical epochs emphasized the character of Yahweh as 
a god of the primitive, brotherhood mishpat — (i) the nomadic 
period in the Arabian wilderness, (2) the period of the Judges, 
(3) the period of the highland kingdom. Throughout all 
this time, from days immemorial straight up to the death of 
Saul at Gilboa, the clan chiefs presided over the administra- 
tion of justice in the name of Yahweh. The courts operated 
not primarily to manufacture law, but simply to guarantee 
the application of old customs to all cases. Every man who 
had reached the years of discernment knew in a general way 
what the clan morality demanded. Therefore we must fix 
clearly in mind that, in the very nature of the situation, the 
mishpat of Yahweh was no secret. It was the common property 
of the clan conscience. 

Yahweh therefore continued apart from the Amorite Baals 
during the time of Saul. — We have seen that the final "putting- 
away" of Amorite gods is placed in the time just prior to the 
establishment of the monarchy (I Sam. 7:4). "The contest 
with the Canaanite religion," says Marti, "naturally played 
an important part in the struggle for the possession of the 
country."^ In line with the same view, Kuenen has observed 
that the struggle for nationality must have been coupled with 
a more or less pronounced aversion to the local Canaanite cults, 

'Marti, Religion of the Old Testament (London, 1907), p. 98. 



ii8 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

and with a desire to preserve Israel's religious individuality.' 
There is no mention of the Baals in the narratives of the high- 
land kingdom; and the Amorite gods evidently stood outside 
the calculations of the IsraeHtes at this time. 

By the latter part of the Judges period, the highlanders 
had already begun to bring offerings of bread and wine up 
to the Shiloh sanctuary (I Sam. 1:24). For Yahweh had 
now become a god of the hill-country. The clouds were 
beUeved to drop water at the presence of Yahweh, in the " Song 
of Deborah," the oldest extant piece of Hebrew Hterature 
(Judg., chap. 5). He sends dew on Gideon's fleece of wool, 
as it Hes on the highland threshing floor in the heart of 
Canaan (Judg. 6:36 f.). It was he, not the Baals, who sent 
the rams that fertilized the crops and made the grass to spring 
forth in the uplands of Ephraim, Gilead, and Judah. The 
bread of the "presence" that stood before the altar of Yahweh 
at Nob was the fruit of the ground (I Sam. 21:6). Bread and 
wine, both coming from the soil, were offered at the holy 
place in Bethel (I Sam. 10:3); and it cannot be claimed 
that the sacrifices at the high place in Ramah were limited 
to flesh food (I Sam. 9:iif.). Yahweh had conquered the 
highlands, and wrested them from the power of the Amorite 
Baals. "As Semitic tribes migrated and settled in new 
environments, their deities naturally took on many new func- 
tions or attributes from the new surroundings."^ 

' Kuenen, Religion of Israel (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 312. 

^ Barton, "Yahweh before Moses," a paper in the Toy Anniversary Volume. 

Budde's view is unnatural, that Yahweh got his function as a rainmaker at second- 
hand from the Amorite Baals. If Yahweh got his attributes in this way, how did the 
Baals get their powers ? — from still other gods, ad infinitum ? There was little or no 
contact between the Yahweh and Baal cults during the Judges period and the time of 
Saul's kingdom. The entanglement of the two cults came later, and even then was 
limited to certain parts of the country and certain classes of the people. In some 
Hebrew minds, the distinction between Yahweh and the Baals remained a vital, out- 
standing fact straight along through the history. For instance, Hosea declares on 
behalf of Yahweh, "I gave her the grain, and the new wine, and the oil" (Hos. 2:8); 
and this view at length prevailed. Cf. Gen. 7:4; 27:27,28; Exod.9:33; Deut. 7:13; 
33:13-16,28; I Kings 17:1; 18:44; Amos 4: 7; Jer. 14:22. 



SAUL'S KINGDOM IN THE HILLS 119 

The god of Israel was recognized in many personal names 
during this period. The name of the crown prince, Jonathan, 
signifies " Yahweh has given" (I Sam. 14:39). The name of 
the priest Ahijah means "Yahweh is protector" (I Sam. 
14:3). That of Joab, the warrior, means " Yahweh is father" 
(I Sam. 26:6).^ 

' There is no reason to suppose that Yahweh shared with the Baals the religious 
devotion of Israel during the time of the highland kingdom. The idea that Amorite 
Baal-worship was necessarily involved whenever an Israelite sowed seed in the uplands 
in the reign of Saul is an assumption for which there is absolutely no warrant in the 
sources. 

The name Ishbaal, which was given to one of the sons of Saul (II Sam. 2:8) 
signifies "man of Baal." This name in II Samuel has been changed by the zeal 
of some later copyist into Ish-bosheth, or "man of shame" (cf. I Chron. 8:33). If 
the Baal in question be Yahweh, the fact indicates merely that this generic term was 
applied to him, but not that he had suddenly forfeited his "identity" through con- 
fusion with the many Baals of the Amorites. The term had, as we have seen, denoted 
the father of a family in Israel (chap, vi, supra); and so its application to Yahweh 
may have been suggested as much by Israelite analogy as by Amorite usage. In any 
case, the Baal-names weigh no more heavily in the scales of evidence than do the 
Yahweh-names; and the highland kingdom, like the Judges period, yields more of 
the latter than of the former. Professor Addis writes, on the matter of names, 
"Nothing can be made of the fact that Hebrew proper names are sometimes com- 
pounded with Baal" {Hebrew Religion [London, 1906], pp. 106 f.). 



CHAPTER XIIT 

COALESCENCE OF THE RACES 

The Hebrew nation came into existence under the house of 
David, at the point of coalescence between Israelites and Amo- 
rites. — The Hebrew nation, as known to world history, did not 
arise until Israelites and Amorites were brought under the 
cover of one political roof. The extension of the framework 
of the monarchy was the task of David, one of the most 
astute statesmen that ever crossed the stage of history. With 
great boldness, David located his capital at one of the Amorite 
walled cities which had not been reduced by the Israelites at 
the time of the original inA^asion. This place, known as 
"Jebus" and also as "Jerusalem," had remained a foreign 
city up to the time of David. The new king took this place, 
and occupied its fort, Zion, calling it the "City of David." 
Instead of exterminating the inhabitants, after the manner of 
Saul, David spared the Amorite population and contracted 
state-marriages with the leading families (II Sam. 5:6-13). 
In line with the same policy, and as a further token of good 
faith, David gave up to the Amorites of Gibeon a number of 
the grandsons of Saul for execution. This he did by way of 
atonement for Saul's perfidy in breaking the treat}^ with the 
Amorites (II Sam., chap. 21).^ 

' It is to be noticed that David protected himself in this action by consulting the 
ephod oracle of Yahweh; but this particular item of evidence should be taken in 
connection with the whole situation. "Religion in antiquity, particularly official 
religion, usually gave its oracles in accordance with royal or priestly policy." — Good- 
speed, History of the Babylonians and Assyrians (New York, 1906), p. 288. To the 
same effect, see Breasted, History of Egypt (New York, 1905), pp. 522, 523. Also, 
on Greek oracles, Jebb, Essays (Cambridge, 1907), pp. 156 f. Professor Jebb writes, 
"There were occasions on which an oracle became, in a strict sense, the organ of a 
pohtical party." He adds, rather profanely, that the god "Apollo, in short, kept 
up a series of most urgent leading articles." We have discussed the ephod oracle of 
Yahweh in Part II, chap. viii. 

120 



COALESCENCE OF THE RACES 121 

The general situation is clearly shown by a detached 
notice inserted in the Book of Joshua by a later hand, as 
follows: "As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, 
the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the 
Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem 
unto this day" (Josh. 15:63). An instance of the peaceful 
relations established between the races appears in the case of 
Araunah the Jebusite, from whom David bought some real- 
estate. Araunah calls David, "My lord, the king" (II Sam. 
24:16, 21). It is not surprising to find persons from the 
Canaanite cities in David's army (11 Sam. 23:32, 37); nor is 
it strange that a general census in this reign accounted for 
Canaanites as well as for Israelites (II Sam. 24: i ff.). 

David was followed on the Hebrew throne by his son 
Solomon. This king was not born among the peasantry of the 
hills, like his father, but in the Amorite city of Jerusalem. 
Under Solomon the national process went to its logical issue. 
The new monarch set up the administration of the kingdom 
not only in his native city, Jerusalem, but in a number of 
Amorite cities, such as Beth-shemesh, Taanach, Megiddo, 
Shaalbim, Hazor, Gezer, Beth-shean, etc. (I Kings 4:1, 2, 9, 
II, 12, and 4:15).^ 

It is clear that under Solomon the development of national- 
ity came to a climax. In this reign the Hebrew kingdom 
took the form of an organization including all the social factors 
that enter into the composition of a mature state. It was not 
merely a loose confederacy of shepherds and farmers, as in the 
time of Saul. For the monarchy now embraced not only the 
more primitive and backward classes, but merchants, artisans, 
bookkeepers, teachers, and financiers; and it entered with 
some abruptness into the circle of oriental civilization 
(I Kings 4: 1-5; 9:28; 10: 14-28). The fact that Israel finally 

' Compare the list of unconquered Amorite cities in Judg., chap, i, as quoted 
above, p. 106. 



122 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

came to disaster is no proof that the union of the races in a 
single state was a bad policy. It simply proves that nobody 
was able to cope with the resulting situation. 

The race distinction of the Amorites was lost within the 
mass of the Hebrew nation,— The sociology of the Israelite 
invasion of Canaan was precisely opposite to that created 
by the Norman invasion of England. In the case of the 
Normans, the invaders found a social group already in 
existence. The English nation was organized under a king 
before the Normans crossed the channel; so that Norman 
life adjusted itself within the national mold, or matrix, 
furnished by English life. "As early as the days of Henry 
the Second," writes Green, "the descendants of Norman and 
Englishman had become indistinguishable. Both found a 
bond in a common English feeling and English patriotism."^ 
In England, therefore, the invaders took the name of the older 
inhabitants. 

But the Israelite invaders of Canaan did not find a national 
group in possession of the land. In this case, it was the 
invaders, and not the older inhabitants, who supplied the 
organization. The national movement started among the 
Israelites of the highlands, not among the Amorites of the 
lowlands; it was Israel that gave the first national rulers, 
and supplied the national religion. As a result, the older 
population at length lost its identity in the mass of the Hebrew 
nation, and became Israelite in name. In these contrasted 
historic situations, the Hebrew and the English, the objective 
circumstances were precisely opposite; and the key to the 
facts in each case is found in the group organization. The 
Amorites intermarried with the Israelites; and the new genera- 
tions called themselves Israelites, or Hebrews, and ignored 
the Amorite side of their ancestry. The invasion of the land 
by the Israelites projected itself into bold relief against the 

' Green, History of the English People, Book III, chap. i. 



COALESCENCE OF THE RACES 123 

historical background, while the intermingling of the races 
made no impression upon later generations. 

All these facts resulted in the tradition that finally became 
current, in which the Israelites were said to have triumphantly 
swept away and exterminated the Amorites. Everybody 
of any consequence wanted to be known as a Hebrew, or 
Israelite, descended straight from Jacob, the ancient hero, 
who took the country out of the hand of the Amorite with his 
sword and with his bow (Gen. 48:22). The idea that the 
earlier population was totally destroyed appears, as we have 
seen already, in the late Book of Joshua (see above, chap, ii) ; 
but this is on the basis of popular tradition. To the same 
effect, Amos declares on behalf of Yahweh, "Yet destroyed 
I the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height 
of the cedars, and he was strong as the oaks. Yet I destroyed 
his fruit from above and his roots from beneath" (Amos 
2:9). The idea that the Amorites were destroyed, root and 
branch, is indeed one of the vague, popular notions that 
survive down to the present day. Unless we take the trouble 
to look below the surface, and hold the fundamental facts 
in mind, we miss the real merits of the Bible situation as 
it unrolls before us. 

Under the house of David, the political center of gravity shifted 
from the Israelite highlands to the Amorite walled cities. — 
We noticed that King Saul had no fortified capital; and this 
no doubt was one element of the weakness that brought him 
to ruin. It now becomes of importance to observe that 
under the house of David the political center of gravity in 
Israel underwent a remarkable change of location. The 
first two kings of Israel — Saul and David — were born in 
country villages in the hills, the one in Gibeah, the other in 
Bethlehem; but the third king, Solomon, was a native of the 
still Amorite city of Jerusalem. This transfer of the seat of 
government was in response to military necessity. The 



124 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

kingdom was constantly menaced by hostile powers; and no 
administration could be successfully established among the 
villages of the open, unprotected highlands. Thus, the 
national machinery was forced into connection with the 
ancient fortified centers, where it found the only security 
under which it could guard the entire land. The affairs of 
the nation were now directed more and more from the city 
standpoint; and the two races were soon welded into the 
Hebrew nation. The Amorite blood, the Amorite point of 
view, and the Amorite gods remained as factors in the situa- 
tion; but the older inhabitants themselves coalesced with 
the new and vanished from history. 

Bible students have been thrown off their guard by the 
absorption of the Amorites. — The disappearance of the older 
population of the land within the mass of the Hebrew 
state has been the cause of much confusion of ideas — first, 
among the compilers of the Old Testament, and second, 
among those who have studied and read the Bible in all suc- 
ceeding ages. The Amorites were cast out and utterly 
destroyed; yet they rose miraculously from the dead. They 
were demolished forever by mighty portents from heaven; 
yet they remained in possession of numerous walled cities. 
This fundamental variance of ideas is not adjusted anywhere 
in the Bible. The compilers and authors of the Old Testa- 
ment were not scientific historians in the modern sense. 
They worked in the interests of moral and religious edifica- 
tion; and they were so absorbed in the spiritual possibilities 
of IsraeUte history that they paid small heed to the material 
facts. This is nothing unusual among ancient writers; nor 
indeed is it strange at any period of history; for it has often 
come to pass that several competing versions of the same event 
have been afloat at the same time. If it should be inquired 
how the compilers of the Bible could have permitted these 
rival accounts to stand in the canon of sacred Scripture, the 



COALESCENCE OF THE RACES 125 

answer is, that the Bible was not arranged and compiled at 
a single stroke; nor was it all "officially adopted" by the 
ruling powers at the same time. It is the result of the labor 
of many minds, extending over hundreds of years. It rep- 
resents a very gradual accumulation of literary material; 
and even if anybody had wanted to "edit" the Bible into 
scientific and historical accuracy and consistency in the 
modern sense, the circumstances of its production would 
have made such a thing impossible. What we have to bear 
in mind in all these critical studies is, that the Bible has 
actually fulfilled the religious purpose for which it was written, 
and that science and philosophy, no matter what they may 
do, cannot obliterate this great fact. 

Nevertheless, the age in which we live demands that, if 
possible, the embarrassments of the biblical narratives be re- 
solved by careful, scientific study. This becomes necessary 
more and more if the Bible is to be accepted as authori- 
tative by the future. The conception of an essentially homo- 
geneous Israelite people, descended straight from the twelve 
sons of Jacob, has been standing in the minds of Bible students 
and Christian people as a "fixed idea." This idea has not 
only shaped the popular thought, but it has influenced even 
professional scholars more fully than they have always been 
aware.' And so long as this initial difficulty is not fully 
exploited and emphasized, we cannot hope for any further 
solid progress, either scientific or popular, in the understand- 
ing of Scripture. 

An instance of the confusion of ideas about Israelites and 
Amorites.— One of the writers who have promoted confusion 
of mind in regard to the national history is the author of the 
following passage: 

' Thus, modern criticism has pointed out the double ancestry of the Hebrew 
nation, time and again. But, on the whole, this fact has been brought forward only 
to be mentioned and then retired into the background. 



126 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

As for all the people that were left of the Amorites .... which 
were not of the children of Israel, their children that were left after them 
in the land, whom the children of Israel were not able utterly to destroy: 
of them did Solomon raise a levy of bondservants unto this day. But of 
the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondservants. But they 
were the men of war, and his servants, and his princes, and his captains, 
and the rulers of his chariots and of his horsemen (I Kings 9:20-22; 
cf. Lev. 25:39-46). 

According to this writer, the Israelites remained in the 
upper class, in a very dignified social state, while the Amo- 
rites were a distinct "remnant," reduced to bondage. But 
the effort of this writer to show that Solomon did not enslave 
and oppress the IsraeHtes is impeached by other and far 
higher authorities. There is clear evidence that Solomon's 
forced labor was done by persons of Israelite blood ( I Kings 
11:28; 5:13 f.), and that his organized oppression led, among 
other causes, to the revolt of the northern tribes after his 
death. Thus the son and successor of this king is reported 
as expressing himself to the Israelites in the following words: 
"My father made your yoke heavy; but I will add to your 
yoke. My father chastised you with whips; but I will chas- 
tise you with scorpions" (I Kings 12:14), A writer who 
supposes that Solomon raised his levies of bondservants 
only from the Amorites, and that the children of the former 
inhabitants remained apart from Israel, cannot be taken as 
a guide in the study of Hebrew social development. Although 
a few isolated Amorite communities may have remained in 
the time of Solomon, the great mass of biblical evidence 
proves that the two races were fusing under the house of 
David, and that no sharp line of distinction could then be 
drawn between them. 

David brought the "Ark of Yahweh" to the city of Jerusalem; 
and a temple was built for it by Solomon. — During the Judges 
period, the ark, or chest, of Yahweh was a part of the temple 
furniture at Shiloh, in the Ephraimite hills. This object was 



COALESCENCE OF THE RACES 127 

captured in battle by the Philistines, and then left in the 
Amorite city of Kiriath-jearim, a place which was under 
Philistine suzerainty/ After the election of David, he 
advanced upon Kiriath-jearim with an armed force, and 
carried the ark away. The sacred box was then placed in a 
tent in the Israelite quarter at Jerusalem (II Sam. 6:1-17). 
In the following reign it was deposited carefully within the 
shelter of a splendid new temple (I Kings 8:1). 

Neither David nor Solomon made any attempt to abolish 
the numerous local sanctuaries of Yahweh that were scattered 
through the length and breadth of the land. The people 
continued to worship Yahweh at these ancient village churches 
just as they did in earlier times. ^ There is not the slightest 
evidence that David knew anything about the Deuteronomic 
obligation of the one legitimate, central house of worship 
(Deut. 12:10-14. Cf. chap, ii, supra.) 

The ark was taken to Jerusalem in order to promote the 
growth of national sentiment. This holy object, which the 
Israelites had venerated at the temple of Shiloh, furnished 
a visible connection with the past; and it now offered a point 
of attachment for the patriotic feelings of the newly estab- 
lished Hebrew nation. 

' The improbable story of the return of the ark by the Philistines occurs in a 
passage that has been tampered with by a late priestly writer. The " Baale-Judah ' 
of II Sam. 6:2 is the same as Kiriath-jearim (cf. I Chron. 13:5, 6; Josh. 15:9, 10; 
I Sam. 7:1). 

'"How far Israel actually worshiped the local Baals at these sanctuaries is 
uncertain." — Robinson, Comtnentary on Deuteronomy (New York), p. 115 



CHAPTER XIV 
THE "INCREASE" OF YAHWEff 

The evolution of ancient society brought with it an evolution 
of ideas about the gods. — It is well known among students of 
the history of religion that the coalescence of ancient social 
groups into larger groups always brought with it the rise of 
some particular deity, thrusting the cult of that god up to a 
new eminence of distinction. 

Thus, when the Assyrians founded their national govern- 
ment, and when their king became supreme over other kings, 
their god Ashur became supreme over other gods.^ In 
Babylonia, Marduk, the god of the city of Babylon, rose to 
lordship over his local rivals.^ "The priests of Marduk," 
writes Jastrow, "set the fashion in theological thought. So 
far as possible, the ancient traditions and myths were reshaped 
so as to contribute to the glory of Marduk. The chief part 
in the work of creation is assigned to him."'' It was the 
pious behef of Hammurabi that he was the favorite of Mar- 
duk, and that the power of this god brought success to the 
Babylonian king. In the same way, the Egyptian deity 
Amon, originally the god of the city of Thebes, rose to an 
imperial place as Thebes advanced in importance. "The 
triumph of a Theban family," writes Breasted, "had brought 

with it the supremacy of Amon It was not until now 

that he became the great god of the state He now rose 

' The term "increase" comes from Jeremiah, as below. 
^ Sayce, Babylonians and Assyrians (New York, 1900), p. 256. 
3 Goodspeed, History of the Babylonians and Assyrians (New York, 1906), p. 115. 
■f Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), p. 691. Cf. chaps, 
vii and xxi. 

128 



THE "INCREASE" OF YAHWEH 129 

to a unique and supreme position of unprecedented splen- 
dor."' In illustration of the same principle, Steindorff writes: 

In the beginning there was no uniformity of religion in Egypt. 
Every city, every town, every hamlet, possessed its own protecting deity, 
its own patron. To him the inhabitants turned in the hour of need or 
danger, imploring help; by sacrifice and prayer they sought to win his 

favor. In his hand lay the weal and woe of the community The 

Egyptian religion entered upon a new phase of its development in the 
"Middle Kingdom," when the political center of gravity of the realm 
was generally shifted southward. During the internal confusion which 
had brought the "Old Kingdom" to its end, the Upper Egyptian city 
Thebes had acquired power and reputation. It was by Theban princes 
that the reorganization of the state was successfully carried out; and 
though the kings of Dynasty XII transferred their residence to the 
lake district of the Fayoum, the city from which they had sprung 
remained the object of their fostering care. The Theban local divinity, 
Amon, identified with the sun-god and transformed into Amon-Re, was 
set above other gods, and honored by new temples and costly gifts. 
Later on, Thebes was the headquarters of the struggle against the 
Hyksos, and after its termination, the chief city of the "New King- 
dom." .... Thus in the "New Kingdom," Amon became the wa/iowa^ 
god of Egypt. ^ 

The rise of the Hebrew nation brought with it the rise of Yah- 
weh among the gods of the ancient world. — The foregoing in- 
stances help us to see by analogy how the development of 
the Hebrew nation supplied the objective social basis for the 
elevation of Yahweh among the gods. 

Reverting to the desert period a moment, the lowest level 
to which we can trace Yahweh is that of a local deity of the 
wilderness with his seat on Mount Sinai. It was here that 
one or more of the Israelite clans entered into covenant with 
the Kenites, and became worshipers of Yahweh. As Jere- 
miah says, "Israel was consecrated to Yahweh — the first- 

' Breasted, History of Egypt (New York, 1905), p. 248. 

' Steindorff, The Religion of the Ancient Egyptians (New York, 1905), pp. 17, 52, 53. 
Cf. Erman, Handbook of Egyptian Religion (London, 1907), pp. 19, 57, 58, 81. 



I30 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

fruits of his increase'' (Jer. 2:3). Elsewhere it is said that 
Yahweh "became" the god of Israel, and that he "chose" 
Israel in order to make himself a "reputation," or a "name" 
(II Sam. 7:23; cf. Neh. 9:10). The covenant in the desert 
is rightly spoken of by Jeremiah as marking the early steps 
of the "increase" of Yahweh. 

During the time of the Judges and of the highland king- 
dom, Yahweh remained a god of hill villages and nomadic 
tent dwellers in the uplands. But after the coalescence of 
Israehtes and Amorites in the Hebrew nation, the cult of 
Yahweh sprang into a new importance and acquired more 
weight. The term Israel now represented far more than at 
first. The new generations began to think not only that 
Yahweh had conquered the hiU-country as his "inheritance," 
but that his power had given Israel the entire land of Canaan. 
Thus Yahweh advanced from the position of a clan god to 
that of a national deity. 

But this was not all. The Hebrew nation hardly came into 
existence under David before it acquired an imperial position. 
The Philistines were vanquished so decisively that they ceased 
to harass Israel. The Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, and 
Arameans were defeated and put to tribute. Thus we read : 

It came to pass that David smote the Philistines and subdued them. 

.... And he smote Moab And the Moabites became slaves to 

David and brought tribute. David smote also Hadadezer the son of 

Rehob, king of Zobah And when the Arameans of Damascus 

came to succor Hadadezer king of Zobah, David smote of the Arameans 
two and twenty thousand men. Then David put garrisons in Aram of 
Damascus; and the Arameans became slaves to David and brought 
tribute. And Yahweh gave victory to David whithersoever he went. 
.... And he put garrisons in Edom .... and all the Edomites 
became slaves to David. And Yahweh gave victory to David whithersoever 
he went (II Sam. 8: 1-14). 

Thus we see that just as David became "king of kings," 
so Yahweh became "god of gods." The rise of David pro- 



THE "INCREASE" OF YAHWEH 131 

moted the rise of Yahweh; and the king himself beheved 
that the god of Israel was helping him wherever he went. 
As a matter of sober fact, the rehgions of ancient society did 
lead to victory by the coherence and organization which they 
gave. Soldiers were always raUied to battle in the name of a 
god; and the stronger the common enthusiasm for the god, 
the more effective the army became. Until we saturate our- 
selves in the atmosphere of the ancient world, this religious 
phenomenon can hardly be grasped in all its force and sig- 
nificance. The same principle was ever)rwhere at work among 
the ancient states. The quotation just given from the Book 
of Samuel with reference to David and Yahweh can be 
matched, almost word for word, from the inscriptions of 
Egypt, Babylonia, and Assyria. All the ancient kings believed 
their gods were assisting them; and they constantly invoked 
the presence and support of these divine helpers. Religion 
was a fact of tremendous reality and importance. The gods 
came to their votaries in dreams; and at moments of high 
excitement, such as the crisis of battle, some persons actually 
thought they saw their divinity leading the charge against 
the opposing army and its gods. 

From these facts and examples we can see how the social 
development of Israel supplied the external basis for the 
"increase" of Yahweh. In the mind of the Hebrews, their 
god had shown himself superior to the gods of all peoples, 
with whom Israel had thus far come in contact. The deities 
of neighboring peoples fell below the level of Yahweh, who 
was plainly showing himself to be a "god of hosts, mighty in 
battle." It is to the period of the Davidic empire that the 
"Book of the Wars of Yahweh" is probably to be referred. 
The Israelite mind at this time could easily draw the infer- 
ence that Yahweh's power exceeded that of all the gods. 
For "Yahweh gave David the victory whithersoever he 
went"; and the peoples with whom Israel did not come into 



132 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

conflict at this particular time were either too far away, or 
too feeble, to make any impression upon the religious con- 
sciousness of Israel. The expansion of the idea of Yahweh 
had therefore an ample basis in the social condition of the 
Hebrew kingdom. 

The increase of Yahweh, as thus treated, cannot explain the 
development of Bible religion. — The circumstances wherein 
Yahweh started on the way to his position as "Lord of lords" 
bring to view only a single thread, or phase, of the process 
that we are investigating. The fact that calls most loudly 
for explanation, as we have pointed out several times, is not 
the superiority of Yahweh over other gods in point of power, 
but in point of the moral character finally connected with 
him as the Redeemer of mankind. The tendency toward 
monotheism is visible among many ancient peoples; and the 
worship of a god who is beheved to be more powerful than 
other gods is frequently found in antiquity. Such a religion 
has no particular advantage over polytheism, unless it be 
saturated with an exclusive ethical spirit such as the cult of 
Yahweh at length acquired. 



CHAPTER XV 

THE GROUPING OF THE GODS 

The coalescence of Israelites and Amorites brought the cults 
of Yahweh and the Baals into close connection. — When the two 
races united in the Hebrew nation, the gods of hath peoples 
continued to stand. There is nowhere any hint that David 
commanded the Amorites to put away their ancient cults 
as a condition of entering the kingdom. To do this would 
have stirred up race-prejudice once more, since religion and 
politics were identified in ancient society. The entire policy 
of David shows that he wanted to conciliate the Amorites; 
and there is no sign of any struggle against the local Baal- 
worship for many generations after the establishment of the 
Davidic monarchy. We do not know whether David and 
Solomon themselves worshiped the native Amorite gods;^ 
but we know that the incorporation of the Amorites would 
have been impossible if they had not become worshipers of 
the national deity; and we find cases in which they actually 
practiced the cult of Yahweh (II Sam. 21:1-9; ^f. I Kings 
3:4, 5). But on the other hand, the Baals were local, or pro- 
vincial, gods; and the founding of the nation did not bring 
up the subject of the local worship. As a consequence, the 
provincial gods dropped into the background until they were 
finally thrust into notice by the fierce denunciations of the 
later prophets. 

The Hebrew kingdom brought with it a strong impulse to 
regard Yahweh as a god of civilization. — The establishment of 
the monarchy at the point of coalescence between Israelites 
and Amorites brought with it a powerful tendency to forget 

' Professor Ira M. Price, of the University of Chicago, suggests that David may- 
have simply ignored the local Baals. 

133 



134 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

or ignore the connection between Yahweh and the older 
usages of the desert and the hills. There was now an impulse 
to connect the national god with the standpoint of civiliza- 
tion as opposed to that of the wilderness, and to claim the 
patronage of Yahweh on behalf of legal usages that were 
strange to the more primitive classes in Hebrew society. In 
other words, the kingdom had a propensity to draw Yahweh 
aside from his earlier character as a god of the primitive, brother- 
hood mishpat, and to regard him as a divinity having the same 
nature as the local Baals. This impulse is clearly chargeable 
to that part of the Hebrew nation where Amorite blood was 
thickest. The tendency to "baalize" the national god came 
out conspicuously into relief among the ruling classes who 
stood connected with the old Amorite centers of population. 

But Yahweh's early character, as a god of brotherhood "mish- 
pat," clung to him persistently. — The tendency to convert the 
national god into a local Baal was not suffered to go unchecked. 
For the old idea of Yahweh survived in vigor among certain 
classes of the people. The nation, indeed, became an arena 
wherein a mighty conflict was waged around this issue: 
Is Yahweh a god who approves the standpoint of oriental 
civilization, with its practical disregard of the common 
man ? Or, is he to be worshiped as a god who sanctions the 
older and higher morality of the nomadic social group, with 
its greater esteem for human rights ? 

In the end, the tendency to "baalize" Yahweh was defeated. — 
The struggle around this issue occupies the foreground of 
our sociological investigation of the Bible. The great conflict 
began, as many struggles do, in a vague and confused way. 
Men could not immediately think themselves into absolute 
clearness about it. They had to go through stages in their 
discernment of the logic underlying the main issue. It is not 
the design of this chapter to put on exhibition the different 
periods that marked the controversy. But it is well to 



THE GROUPING OF THE GODS 135 

emphasize at this point in our study that the tendency to 
baalize the Hebrew rehgion was defeated in the long run. 
However strong the forces were which tended to convert 
Yahweh into a god of "civilization," the religious develop- 
ment of Israel proves that these forces were largely counter- 
acted. 

The distinction between Yahweh and the local Baals was 
explicitly asserted by the prophet Hosea, in the eighth century 
B.C.; by the prophet Jeremiah, in the seventh century; and 
by the Deuteronomic writers, who were in part contemporary 
with Jeremiah, The great monument of the Deuteronomic 
school is, of course, the Book of Deuteronomy, in which the 
"other gods" chiefly in view are the gods of the former inhabi- 
tants of Canaan. But the Deuteronomists also accomplished 
work of large importance in compiling and editing the books of 
Judges, Samuel, and Kings, which emphasize the distinction 
between Yahweh and the local Baals. 

There were several ways in which the distinction between 
Yahweh and the Baals was preserved. — A number of circum- 
stances operated to maintain the qualitative difference between 
the cults inherited by the nation from its double ancestry, 
Israelite and Amorite. 

I. The social diversity of the Hebrews. — It is a fact of large 
and vital importance that the nation was not ironed out into 
absolute social and religious uniformity. The mixture of 
Israel with the Amorites was mostly in Ephraim, the north ."^ 
It was here that most of the old Amorite cities lay (cf . chap, xi. 
Table II). Accordingly, it was in Northern Israel, that Baal- 
worship flourished more than elsewhere.^ 

But on the contrary, the people with whom the Israehtes 
mixed in the highlands of Judah were mostly Arabian clans, 
whose habits and point of view agreed more closely with the 

' G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land (London, 1904), p. 316. 
* McCurdy, art. "Baal," Jewish Encyc. 



136 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

early mishpat of Yahweh. "The shepherd's occupation," 
writes Professor Addis, "was .... especially prominent in 
Judah, where there is much less arable land than in the central 
districts of Palestine."' The influence of Judah in the direc- 
tion of the more primitive life and thought was reinforced by 
that of Gilead, on the east of the Jordan. Gilead was a hill- 
country, "a place for cattle" (Num. 32:1). Here the goats 
lay along the mountain side; here people and flock fed in the 
ancient days (Song of Sol. 4:1; Mic. 7:14)- Gilead was 
ever one of the backward, outlying sections of Israel, touched 
but little by Amorite civiHzation. 

The Israelites of the frontier, in Judah and beyond the Jordan in 
Gilead, evidently retained not a little of the ancient nomad habits, 
and in part were closely allied with other tribes of the wilderness. Thus 
we find from time to time expressions of that characteristic distaste for 
the ease and luxuries of settled life which belongs to the genuine Bedouin. 
The Nazirite vow against drinking wine and the laws of the Rechabites 
are cases in point. And the Rechabites, like the Nazirites, were on the 
side of the old Jehovah [Yahweh] worship, and agamst the Canaanite 
Baal.* 

As soon as we fix firmly in mind the primitive disposition 
of Judah and Gflead, as contrasted with the more "civilized" 
character of Ephraim, we shall be prepared to grasp the sig- 
nificance of two of the earliest and most effective Israelite 
prophets. Elijah, of Gilead, left his home, and passed over 
into the more Amorite Ephraim in order to protest against 
the evils of his time (I Kings 17:1 ff.). In the same way, 
Amos left his home in the wilderness of southern Judah, and 
went up into Ephraim to preach on behalf of the ancient 
mishpat of Yahweh (Amos 7:10-15). These flaming prophets 
were semi-nomads themselves; and they were the spokesmen 
of whole classes of shepherds and cattle-raisers that lived in the 

'Addis, Hebrew Religion (London, 1906), p. 82. Cf. G. A. Smith, op. cit. 
2 W. Robertson Smith, The Prophets of Israel (London, 1897), pp. 381, 382. Cf. 
Renan, History of Israel (Boston), Vol. II, p. 227. 




-6t^^^ 



^^ 



cl 



v^ 



GILEAD' 

Y/\HWEH-W0R5HIP 
mCFLY 



BAAL-PEOR 
OF nOAB 



SCHEME OF HEBREW EVOLUTION 

This diagram should be frequentlj' consulted. The Israelite clans located them- 
selves in the hills of Judah, Ephraim, and Gilead. The fusion with the .\morites was 
mostly in Ephraim. The '' mishpat struggle" began with blind revolts against the 
government; proceeded thence to expulsion of the "border-Baals"; and at length 
took its characteristic, biblical form by raising the question of the local, or native, 
Baals inherited from the Amorite side of the nation's ancestry. 



THE GROUPING OF THE GODS 137 

highlands of Judah and Gilead in close touch with desert 
life and ways of thought/ 

2. The historical memories of the Judges period were another 
circumstance that preserved the distinction between Yahweh 
and the local Baals. This distinction was implied in the vivid 
stories that came down across the centuries from the early 
period of the settlement, enshrined in the recollections of the 
people. These ancient folk- tales from the pre-monarchic 
period were taken up eagerly by the Deuteronomic school, 
which combined them into a treatise later known as the 
"Book of Judges." In this work, the campaign against the 
local Baal-worship is treated with great energy and effect. 

3. The military victories of David supplied another tendency 
in the direction of emphasizing the contrast between Yahweh 
and the Amorite gods. The martial progress of the Hebrew 
nation lifted Yahweh high above the local Baals. The 
Amorite Araunah, of Jerusalem, is represented as speaking to 
David about "Yahweh thy god" (II Sam. 24:23); and it was 
impossible that Araunah and his Amorite neighbors could 
have imagined that the strong god whose tent had been lately 
set up on the hill of Zion was in any sense a deity whom their 
own forefathers had venerated as a local Baal. When the 

' It is a well-established law that every stage in social development finds its 
point of departure in some diversity, or heterogeneity, that existed in the preceding 
stage of evolution. This is treated in the writer's Examination of Society (1903). 
See sec. 78 of that book with reference to the lack of uniformity among the Hebrews. 
As we shall see later, the social diversity of the nation explains the peculiar distribu- 
tion of emphasis upon local Baalism in the Old Testament. The final reaction against 
it in the early period is placed in the time of the Judges, before the Israelites and 
Amorites had coalesced (I Sam. 7:4). The local Baals are not again mentioned for 
many centuries (I Kings 18: 18; 21 : 26; II Kings 21 : 2, 3). Elijah apparently strug- 
gled only against foreign Baalism. The eighth-century sonlhcrn school of prophecy 
(consisting of Amos, Micah, and Isaiah) had nothing explicit to say about Baahsm. 
The first prophet of Israel to raise the issue as a local matter was Hosea, who lived 
amid the Baal-worship of the north. But the final characteristic development of the 
Baal issue took place in the south, under the leadership of Jeremiah and the Deuterono- 
mists, long after the time of Hosea. This interesting phase of the process will be 
treated in the chapters that follow. 



138 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

Amorites of Gibeon sacrificed the grandsons of Saul "before 
Yahweh," they could hardly have identified the national god 
with the provincial Baals (II Sam. 21 : 1-9). 

No doubt, many persons in David's time worshiped Yah- 
weh in the same character as the local Baals; and later on, 
many people may have gone farther, and regarded the provin- 
cial gods as local forms of Yahweh, the great national Baal. 
Yet there were clear-sighted minds among the Hebrews, 
down to the very end of the national history, such as Hosea, 
Jeremiah, and the Deuteronomic school. The military exploits 
of David, by lifting Yahweh high above the local Baals, were 
among the subtle and pervasive circumstances that helped the 
later prophets to keep alive the distinction between the gods. 

Hosea tells the people to cease calling Yahweh a Baal (Hos. 
2:16); and Jeremiah declares that the people have forgotten 
Yahweh's "name" by reason of Baal (Jer. 23:27). In the 
end, the tendency to confuse Yahweh and the Baals, both as 
to "personahty" and as to "character," was overcome by the 
tendency to distinguish between the gods.^ 

Under the Hebrew kings, the "established religion" took the 
form of a pantheon, with Yahweh as the leading divinity. — "It is 
nothing surprising," writes Professor H. P. Smith, "to find the 
tutelary deities of all Solomon's subjects united in a pantheon." 
The reason for this is, that "the religion of Yahweh was not at 
this period sufiiciently exclusive to protest against it."^ 

The actual religion of the Hebrews, before the Exile, was 
clearly a system of polytheism, in which many divinities were 
included, and wherein Yahweh, the national god, was the 

' Although a few Baal names date from the time of David, which point to the 
application of this common term to Yahweh, there are far more names from this period 
which include the proper name of the national god. Moreover, these names are not 
borne by common folk, but by persons of distinction (II Sam. 3:4; 8:16; 12:25; 
13:3; 20:23; 20:24; I Kings 1:5; 4:2; 4:3; 11:29). 

^H. P. Smith, Old Testament History (New York, 1903), p. 169 (itaUcs ours). 
"As empires brought different tribes or cities into polidcal unity, pantheons were 
formed."— George A. Barton, op. cit. Kuenen says that it was quite natural that the 
other gods should be served in the high places beside Yahweh {The Religion of Israel 
London], Vol. I, p. 351). 



THE GROUPING OF THE GODS 139 

leading figure. Among "other gods" the local Baals became 
the most important, because the religion of Israel took on its 
world-renowned character of absolute exclusiveness through the 
fight against the Amorite gods. 

When treated in this way, Bible-study acquires a new 
interest for the modern mind. We behold the Hebrew king- 
dom born at the point of coalescence between Amorite civiliza- 
tion and Israelite nomadism. Each race contributes its own 
gods and its own social point of view to the composite nation. 
But there is a fundamental difference between the standpoints 
of civilization and nomadism. This conflict slowly takes form 
within the nation. It is the later prophets who realize the 
facts of the problem in a broad way; and only after a long 
and agonizing struggle is the difference between social usages 
expressed in the form of a rivalry within the "established" 
Hebrew religion itself. Just here lay the heart-shattering 
feature of the problem. The standpoints of nomadism and 
civilization were identified respectively witbn.''ahweh and the 
Baals at the start; and the logic of history -^pursueaei^e Hebrew 
mind like invisible fate until the conflict at last came to an 
issue around the hostility between Yahwism and Baalism.' 

■ It must be remembered that the term baal indicated ownership, and that it 
imph'ed the social system of slavery. The Amorite Baals represented a social system 
in which freemen could legally be reduced to bondage. Hence, in the eyes of 
prophets such as Jeremiah, this term should not be applied to Yahweh, since it did 
not represent his attitude toward the clansmen of Israel (cf. pp. 160-61). 



CHAPTER XVI 
THE INTERACTION OF TENDENCIES 

The development of Bible religion took place through the 
pressure of diverse "forces." — The religion of the Bible is not 
the outcome of one special thread of influence, but the product 
of many tendencies and circumstances v^orking together. 

At the beginning of this part of our study, we showed that 
the Yahweh cult got its peculiar and exclusive character through 
a long struggle (chap. ix). The following chapter showed 
that this conflict involved the shock of opposing standpoints 
represented by nomadism and civflization (chap. x). We 
then took up the Judges period, showing that the Yahweh- 
Baal struggle was at first an incident of the contact of alien 
social groups, Yahweh retaining his character as a god of the 
primitive, brotherhood mishpat (chap. xi). In the ensuing 
chapter, we p^ar^d on to consider Saul's kingdom in the 
highlands, d/hich nta-rked the beginning of the national move- 
ment. We saw that the Israelites continued apart from the 
Amorites in this period, without taking up the standpoint of 
civilization; that Yahweh became fully acclimatized as a god 
of the highlands, but that he still represented the ancient 
clan usages (chap. xii). We then took up the coalescence of 
Israelites and Amorites in the military Hebrew monarchy 
under the house of David (chap. xiii). Our next item for 
study was the effect of the new national development upon the 
prestige of Yahweh (chap. xiv). Then followed inquiry into 
the relations borne toward each other by the cults inherited 
from the double ancestry of the Hebrews (chap. xv). We 
saw that the nation was convulsed by a struggle wherein 
the tendency to "identify" the national god with the local 
gods was defeated by the principle of distinction between 
Yahweh and the Baals. To this great conflict we now turn. 

140 



CHAPTER XVII 
THE BEGINNING OF THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 

The Hebrew nation was presentiy convulsed by an internal 
struggle. — The rise of the Hebrew state was complicated by 
another social movement of tremendous importance. Within 
fifty years from the time when the Amorites of Beth-shan 
beheld the dead body of King Saul hanging on their outer 
fortifications; within fifty years from the time when the 
Amorites of Gibeon were appeased by the sacrifice of Saul's 
grandsons; within fifty years from the time when David 
began to contract marriages with the Amorites of Jerusalem; 
before the two races had fused into one; and while David 
still occupied the Hebrew throne — the new nation was con- 
vulsed by a tremendous internal struggle. The government 
itself became an object of contention between rival parties. 
The people were in revolt against the crown. 

According to the advice attributed to Samuel, the people 
would not be satisfied with the mishpat of the monarchy. The 
national soil would concentrate in the grasp of the nobility; 
and the masses would be forced into debt and slavery (I Sam. 
8:10-17; cf. chap. X, supra, p. 92). A hint along the line of 
Samuel's address is found in the famous notice about the four 
hundred men who gathered about David at the cave of Adullam 
in his outlaw days — "everyone that was in distress, and every- 
one that was in debt, and everyone that was discontented" 
(I Sam. 22:2). Many slaves were breaking away from their 
masters at this time (I Sam. 25:10). The introduction to the 
narratives about the great revolt led by Ahitophel and Absalom 
clearly implies that the courts are not working to the satisfac- 
tion of the people (II Sam. 15:1-6). For the people do not 
find the right sort of mishpat (justice, or judgment).' The 

' The word mishpat occurs here three times: vss. 2, 4, and 6. 

141 



142 SOCIOLOGIC.\L STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

force that swung the balance in favor of David in the struggle 
with the peasantry was no doubt the professional, hired 
soldiery under command of Benaiah (II Sam. 15:18; 20:23). 
But the military triumph of David could not solve the 
problem before the nation; and as his reign drew to a close, 
the struggle began afresh in the contest over the succession to 
the crown. Two candidates for the throne appeared. One of 
these was Adonijah, supported by the highland peasantry; by 
Joab, the leader of the peasant mihtia; and by the priest 
Abiathar, of the old Ephraimite village of Nob (I Kings i : 5- 
14; 2:13-15). The other candidate, Solomon, had the support 
of Benaiah, the commander of the standing army at the capi- 
tal; of Zadok, the priest of Jerusalem; of Nathan, the prophet 
of Jerusalem; and, no doubt, of the city class in general 
(I Kings 1 :8, 11-14, 44-46). The victory of Solomon over the 
peasantry was as clearly due to the support of the standing 
army as was the earlier triumph of David over the same 
elements of the population.^ 

In harmony with the unpopular origin of his govern- 
ment, Solomon oppressed the peasantry by forced labor. 
This, of course, intensified the national malice against the 
house of David. The taskwork of all that part of the nation 
lying north of Jerusalem (the house of Joseph) was in charge 
of an official by the name of Jeroboam. This man, moved 
by sympathy and ambition, "lifted up his hand against the 
king" (I Kings ii:26f.). In this action, he had the support 
of Ahijah, the prophet, who lived in the Josephite village of 

' "The matter was decided by the strong men of David." — Renan, Studies in 
Religions History (London, 1893) p. 70. "The body-guard was loyal to the old king; 
and it held the balance of power." — ^H. P. Smith, Old Testament History (New York, 
1903), p. 153. Large armies have not usually been necessary to hold down the 
unorganized peasants and nomads of the Semitic world. Doughty, who spent two 
years in Arabia, states that Ibn Rashid maintained his power with four or five hundred 
professional soldiers {Arabia Deserta [Cambridge, 1888], Vol. I, p. 161, and Vol. II, 
p. 23). Mohammed won the battle of Bedr with only three hundred trained men 
against three times that number. Cf. Miiller, Der Islam (Berlin, 1885), Vol. I, p. no. 



BEGINNING OF THE MI SEP AT STRUGGLE 143 

Shiloh. Although Solomon was not unseated, the growth of 
insurgency, as we may now call it, continued throughout his 
reign; and by the time of his death, the majority of the people 
were prepared to take radical action. The son and successor 
of Solomon declares: "My father made your yoke heavy, but 
I will add to your yoke. My father chastised you with whips, 
but I will chastise you with scorpions " (I Kings 12:14). After 
this, the vast bulk of the nation withdrew from the house of 
David, setting up the kingdom of Ephraim, or Israel.' 

The division was not a turning-point in the social history; 
it was a minor incident in the national struggle. In the 
revolt against the house of David, the nation merely shook off 
a small county on the southern border. The vast mass of 
the people north of Jerusalem set up a new government under 
the old name of Israel. It was here, indeed, that the national 
movement had begun. Here was the home of Saul, the 
first king, and of Samuel, the last of the judges. The tiny 
principality on the south was of small political importance. 
Detached and isolated amid the rocky hills, it dropped almost 
below the historical horizon. 

But the issue between parties was not settled by the separa- 
tion of Israel from Judah. The same struggle that had con- 
vulsed the united kingdom soon broke out afresh with growing 
intensity. For many generations, the center of interest in the 
Hebrew struggle was in Israel and not in Judah. The notices 
regarding social conditions in the Northern Kingdom during its 
earlier period are unsatisfactory; but those that we have are 
very suggestive when taken in connection with Bible evidence 
as a whole. One royal house after another was raised up, and 
then cast violently down. So perished the dynasties of Jero- 
boam and Baasha (I Kings, chaps. 14, 15, 16). The rise of 

' It is probable that one element in the popular discontent with Solomon lay in 
the demonetization of silver caused by the heavy influx of gold in connection with 
the growth of commerce in this reign. The old silver money in the hands of the 
common people dropped greatly in value (I Kings 10:10, 11, 14-27). 



144 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

the next royal house was also an incident in the great struggle 
that had convulsed the nation since the days of David. For 
we read that "half of the people followed Tibni ben Ginath, 
to make him king, and half followed Omri. But the people 
that followed Omri prevailed against the people that followed 
Tibni ben Ginath. So Tibni died, and Omri reigned " (I Kings 
i6: 21, 22). The victory of the successful candidate was bound 
up with the fact that he, like Solomon before him, had the 
support of the regular army, having been chosen king in the 
camp some time before the contest with his rival. This 
monarch was followed by his son Ahab, in whose reign the first 
great prophet of the Hebrews came forward with an awful 
curse against the king for his wickedness in connection with 
the seizure of a peasant's land. This famous case, like a flash 
of lightning, illuminates the process of land concentration 
which went forward among the Hebrews as it did among all 
the nations and empires of antiquity (I Kings, chap. 21).^ 
Another evidence of the social problem in the same period is 
found in the indebtedness of a prophet and the bondage of 
his children (II Eangs 4:1). The situation agrees with what 
we read of Assyria in the days of Sargon II. 

The poHcy of Sargon .... involved the subordination of the Assyrian 
peasantry to the commercial and industrial interests of the state or 
to the possessors of great landed estates. The burdens of taxes fell 
upon the farmers even more heavily. They dwindled away, became 

serfs on the estates, or slaves in the manufactories Thus the 

state as organized by Sargon became more and more an artificial struc- 

^ It is to be noted that in the Naboth case (I Kings, chap. 21), the horror in the 
first instance does not He in the murder of Naboth, but in the king's proposal to treat 
the peasant's land as an item of sale and exchange (vs. 2). It is this proposal, involv- 
ing the alienation of his patrimonial soil, that arouses Naboth himself. Then it is 
to be further observed that the conspiracy of Jezebel against Naboth could not be 
carried out as a bare piece of robbery. It had to be given a legal form through the 
court of "elders and nobles" to which Naboth was answerable (vs. 8). The murder, 
in fact, was a mere incident in the case. Naboth's crime, in the eyes of Jezebel, con- 
sisted in lese majeste. He had spurned what the ofi&cial classes viewed as a perfectly 
just and reasonable demand on the part of the king. 



BEGINNING OF THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 145 

ture, of splendid proportions, indeed, but the foundations of which 

were altogether insuflScient Assyria's sudden collapse is so 

startling and unexpected as properly to cause surprise and demand 

investigation The exhausting campaigns, the draft upon the 

population, the neglect of agricultural development, which is the economic 
basis of a nation's existence and for which industry or commerce cannot 
compensate, .... the supremacy of great landowners, and the corre- 
sponding disappearance of free peasants, the employment of mercena- 
ries and all that follows in its train — these things, inseparable from 
a military regime, undermined Assyria's vitality and grew more and 
more dangerous as the state enlarged.^ 

Illustrations to the same effect are also found in Babylonia, 
Egypt, Greece, Rome, and indeed throughout all the ancient 
world. So far as the purely economic, or material, facts are 
concerned, the Hebrew people were not in any way exceptional. 

The "mishpat" struggle turned around the question, What 
are good law and morals? — The coalescence of Israelites and 
Amorites in one social mass produced a great confusion and 
clashing of legal and moral usages and ideas. The nation as 
a whole was not able to agree on what constituted "good" 
law and "good" morals. There was a fundamental conflict 
of standpoints. There was a gigantic, widespread, long- 
continued misunderstanding, in which neither party was 
infallible, and in which right and wrong were on both sides. 
The official, executive class, headed by the king, was located 
in the walled cities, in close contact with the Amorite point of 
view. The practical result was an irresistible tendency to put 
the machinery of the national government on the side of those 
usages and ideas that came from the Amorite ancestry of the 
nation. The setting-up of the monarchy brought with it the 
forcible extension of Amorite mishpat, or legal usage, over the 
backward clans of the hill-country. The highlanders, under 
the lead of such men as Elijah, Elisha, Amos, Jehonadab ben 

' Goodspeed, History of the Babylonians and Assyrians (New York, 1906), pp. 
263, 326, 327, 328. 



146 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

Rechab, and others, reacted against this from the standpoint 
of their ancient, clan mishpat. As a consequence, the situation 
involved what may be figured as a head-on collision between 
moral codes. The monarchical government enlisted the 
organized force of the kingdom on the side of the usages of 
settled civilization, putting the judicial and military and police 
powers behind the extension of Amorite law throughout the 
entire land. It is not impossible that this outcome was fore- 
seen by Samuel substantially as we find it in the book bearing 
his name. His warning was, that the king would represent a 
mishpat, or legal system, in which the peasantry would be 
heavily taxed and reduced to slavery, and in which their 
lands would fall into the possession of a small wealthy class 
of nobles. We are not surprised to find that the great mass 
of the people revolted against the house of David; nor are we 
surprised to see that the people of the Northern Kingdom 
destroyed one royal dynasty after another. What is yet more 
to the point, we are entirely prepared to find that these 
revolutions against the kings were supported by the prophets 
of Yahweh, such as Ahijah the Shilonite, Jehu ben Hanani, 
Elijah, and Elisha (I Kings, chaps, ii, 14-21; II Kings, 
chap. 9). 

Having considered the social struggle from the times of 
David up into the ninth century B.C. (900-800), we shall now 
investigate the struggle as it is reflected in the writings of the 
prophets of later centuries — ^Amos, Hosea, Micah, Isaiah, and 
others. 



CHAPTER XVIII 
THE PROPHETS AND THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 

The prophets were chiefly interested not in the future, but in 
the problems of their own times. — As we turn from the books of 
Samuel and Kings to the writings of the prophets, we find the 
historical development moving onward in the same general 
terms without a break; and the details of the situation come 
out before us with an intimacy that we find nowhere else in 
the Bible. 

It is just at this point that one who is turning away from 
the old view of the Bible begins to get a strong sense of 
the historical unfolding of Israel's experience. The literary 
prophets, from Amos onward, have been largely ignored by 
the older school of biblical interpretation. They have been 
treated in a mechanical way, as minor incidents, not vitally 
related to the Bible history. As a consequence, the prophets 
have not figured much in the thought of Christian people. 
They have been treated as men who were chiefly interested 
in the future. It has been supposed that "prophecy" was the 
equivalent of "prediction." It has been taken for granted 
that the prophets were mostly talking about "things to come," 
and that their main value and significance lay in foretelling 
the birth and life of Jesus. But the primary meaning of the 
word "prophet," as well as of the Hebrew term nahi, does not 
relate to prediction, but simply to preaching. If, instead of 
saying, the "Book of the Prophet Amos," we should say, the 
"Book of the Preacher Amos," we should convey a more accu- 
rate impression of the facts. For the prophets were preachers, 
before everything else; and their attention was directed 
chiefly upon the conditions and problems of their own age. 
Beginning in the time treated by the fourteenth chapter of 

147 



148 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

II Kings, the writings of the prophets furnish a commentary 
on the mishpat struggle going on around them. By studying 
the prophetic books in relation to corresponding passages in 
Kings, we are able to go forward in our investigation." 

The literary prophets were intensely preoccupied with the 
"mishpat" struggle. — It should be emphasized at the outset that 
the problem of mishpat stood at the very center of the prophetic 
field of vision. The treatment of this great biblical term in mod- 
ern translations cannot do justice to the meaning with which it 
is charged in the Hebrew. Beginning with Amos, in the eighth 
century B.C., we find the classic exhortation, "Let mishpat 
roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing 
stream ' ' (Amos 5:24). Advancing through the prophetic books 
that lie along the years, we find a steady and unwavering stress 
upon the same, fundamental theme, until at last the motive 
clothes itself in the exalted visions of the post-exilic Isaiah. 

Behold my Servant, whom I sustain — my Chosen, in whom my soul 
delighteth. I have put my spirit upon him. He shall bring forth mishpat 

[justice] to the nations A cracked reed he shall not break, and 

the dimly burning wick he shall not extinguish. He shall faithfully bring 
forth mishpat. He shall not fail nor be discouraged till he have set 
mishpat in the earth; and the isles shall wait for his law (Isa. 42 : 1-4).* 

' Those who have not previously approached the Bible from this standpoint will 
find the following procedure to be very helpful: On the margin of II Kings, 14: i6, 
write, " Time of the prophet Amos. From this point onward, the hooks of the literary 
prophets give an intimate view of the situation.^' Opposite II Kings 14:23, write, 
"See Amos 1:1; Hos. 1:1. Compare king-names. This is Jerohoam II." Opposite 
II Kings 15:1, write, "5ee Amos 1:1. " Opposite vs. 13, write, "See Amos 1:1; Hos. 
1:1; Mic. 1:1; Isa. 1:1." Opposite vs. 30, write as opposite vs. 13. Opposite II 
Kings 16: 20, write, "See Mic. 1:1; Hos. 1:1; Isa. 1:1." Opposite II Kings 18:1, write, 
"See Hos. 1:1; Mic. 1:1; Isa. 1:1." Opposite II Kings 22:1, write "See Jer. 1:2; 
Zeph.i:i." OppositellKings 22 -.8, write," Anearly edition of the Book of Deuteronomy ." 
Opposite II Kings 23:34, and 24: 18, write, "See Jer. i:j." At the end of the Second 
Book of Kings, write, " Ezekiel prophesied in Babylonia during the Exile. The Book of 
Isaiah, beginning with chap. 40, is exilic and post-exilic." 

^ To translate the term mishpat in this passage merely as "religion" is to obscure 
the fundamental meaning. The word is here distinctly related to consideration for 
the poor, who are symbolized by the reed just ready to break, and the light on the point 
of extinction. As Whitehouse observes, the word is here used " to express the entirety 
of 'judgments' or customs (usages) of Yahweh's leligion." — Commentary on Isaiak 
(New York, Frowde), Vol. II, p. 81. 



PROPHETS AND THE MI SEP AT STRUGGLE 149 

In the voices of these mighty prophets, deep answers unto 
deep across the tumults of history. In spite of differences of 
expression, the same problem is common to all the prophets. 
Amos declares that mishpat has been turned to "wormwood" 
(5:7; 6:12). This thought reappears in Hosea, where mishpat 
is spoken of as springing up like hemlock, or gall, in the 
furrows of the field (10:4).^ Amos longs to see mishpat 
established "in the gate" (5:15). Hosea says that 
Ephraim, or Northern Israel, is "crushed in mishpat^' (S'n-) 
Micah says that he is full of power, "by the spirit of 
Yahweh and of mishpat,'' to declare to Jacob his transgres- 
sion and to Israel his sin (3:8). What does Yahweh 
require, but to do mishpat, and to love kindness, and to walk 
humbly with thy god? (Mic. 6:8.) Learn to do well; seek 
mishpat, says Isaiah (1:17). Zion shall be redeemed with 
mishpat (Isa. 1:27). Woe to those that turn aside the needy 
from mishpat (10:2). Yahweh is a god of mishpat 
30:18). Princes shall rule in mishpat (32:1). Zephaniah, 
making use of a beautiful figure, says that every morning 
Yahweh brings his mishpat to light (3:5). Jeremiah says 
that in all Jerusalem there is not a man that does mishpat 
(5:1). The needy do not get mishpat (Jer. 5:28). No longer 
may Judah remain in the Holy Land unless mishpat is 
thoroughly executed between man and man (7:5-7). Yahweh 
exercises mercy and mishpat in the land (9:24). Yahweh calls 
for the doing of mishpat (21:12; 22:3). Ezekiel gives an 
elaborate catalogue of the various lines of action wherein 
mishpat consists (18:5-27; see 33:14, 15). Yahweh will feed 
the people in mishpat (Ezek. 34:16). The princes are exhorted 
to do mishpat (45:9-12). 

When we have succeeded in grasping the fact that all the 
prophets are absorbed in the same question, we have taken 
one more step toward solution of the Bible problem as a whole. 

' It comes to light again in Deut. 29: 18. 



ISO SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

The strong emphasis of the prophets upon this question is 
very impressive, and calls for the most careful study. We 
are even yet only upon the threshold of our theme. 

The literary prophets all identify Yahweh with the "mishpat" 
inherited from the Israelite ancestry of the Hebrew nation. — 
The passages already cited, together with many others of 
like force, make it clear, in the first place, that the prophets 
do not regard themselves as iimovators. They remember and 
emphasize the connection of the national god with the ancient 
ideas and practices that came into the Hebrew nation from 
the Israelite side of its ancestry. Their view of the "mishpat 
of Yahweh" rests back on the social experience of Israel in 
the old, primitive, nomadic life of the desert, in the period of 
the Judges, and in the time of the highland kingdom under 
Saul. It was, indeed, the survival of these ideas and practices 
among the more backward social classes of the nation that gave 
the prophets their starting-point. In other words, the prophetic 
thought connected itself with the mishpat that prevailed 
among the Israelites before Israel was entangled with Amorite 
ideas and ways of life. Perception of this truth takes us another 
step into the problem. We have seen that the Hebrew nation 
was not ironed out into absolute social and religious uniformity; 
and our previous results and conclusions now begin to drop 
into place in the structure of biblical interpretation. 

At first the prophets contended in a blind way against perver- 
sion of the old "mishpat." — The earlier prophets were not in a 
position to realize the nature of the situation in which they found 
themselves; and they could not understand the meaning and 
power of the forces against which they were fighting. The later 
Old Testament writers — such as the Deuteronomists, Ezekiel, 
and others — awoke to the fact that the essential thing in the 
national struggle was the entanglement of Israel with Amorite 
usages and ideas; and the modern scholar is in a position to see 
this even more clearly and certainly. But the earlier prophets 



PROPHETS AND THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 151 

were thrown completely off their guard by the fact that the 
Amorite race, as such, was no longer in existence. The previous 
population of the land had been absorbed into the mass of 
the nation; and the name of Israel had overspread the entire 
community. Everybody in the time of the prophets believed 
themselves in good faith to be "IsraeHtes"; and the Amorite 
side of the nation's ancestry was ignored. To Amos and his 
contemporaries, the Amorites were a far-away fact, lying on 
the horizon of Hebrew history. 

Yet destroyed I the Amorite before them, whose height was like the 
height of the cedars, and he was strong as the oaks; yet I destroyed his 
fruit from above and his roots from beneath. Also I brought you up 
out of the land of Egypt, and led you forty years in the wilderness, to 
possess the land of the Amorite (Amos 2:9, 10). 

The literary prophets and their forerunners represented (i) 
the more backward social class, and (2) the Israelite ancestry 
of the nation. — The prophet Ahijah came from the Israelite 
village of Shiloh (I Kings 11:29). Elijah was identified with 
the hill-country of Gilead, east of the Jordan (I Kings 17:1). 
Elisha's home was the village of Abelmeholah, in Ephraim 
(I Kings 19:16, 19). The home of Amos was the village of 
Tekoa, in the hills of southern Judah (Amos 1:1; 7:14). 
Micah's residence was in the village of Moresheth, in Judah 
(Mic. 1:1). Jeremiah's home was the village of Anathoth, 
northeast of Jerusalem (Jer. 1:1; 32 : 7-9). 

By comparing these places with the territory conquered 
by the Israelite clans in the early days, it is apparent that 
the literary prophets and their forerunners represented the 
Israehte side of the nation's ancestry, and not the Amorite 
line of its descent. This is equivalent to saying that they 
stood for the more backward social classes, the peasantry 
of the highlands. The homes of some of the prophets (for 
example, Isaiah and Hosea) are not known; but all these 
prophets are in fundamental agreement; and the controlling 



152 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

factor in their message is the standpoint of the highland 
peasantry. 

The literary prophets remained in an attitude of opposition 
to the kings, nobles, and official classes in general. — Since the 
mishpat struggle turned around the question of law, it involved 
the legal arrangements of the nation; it drew the courts into its 
field, and swept the kings, nobles, elders, and ruling classes 
into the storm-center of dispute. The literary prophets 
declaimed against and criticized the rulers of their day; 
and all the prophetic emphasis upon the official class refers 
fundamentally to the interests of mishpat, or justice. 

Amos desires to see mishpat established "in the gate," 
meaning thereby the courts of law, which were controlled by 
the upper classes (5:15). Yahweh will rise against the house 
of King Jeroboam II with the sword (Amos 7:9). Hosea 
directs his word squarely against the house of the king (5:1). 
All the princes he declares to be revolters (Hos. 9:15). 
They have set up kings, but not hy Yahweh (8:4). Micah 
says that the heads of Jacob and the rulers of the house of 
Israel do not know mishpat. They abhor it (Mic. 3:1-3, 
9-1 1). Isaiah predicts that Yahweh will enter into mishpat 
with the elders and princes because they have oppressed the 
poor (3:14). There shall be woe to the rulers whose decrees 
take away the mishpat of the needy (Isa. 10:1, 2). A king 
shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in mishpat 
(32:1). Zephaniah declares that the princes are roaring 
lions, and the judges are evening wolves (3:3). Jeremiah, in 
his picturesque language, says that he is a fortified city and 
an iron pillar and brazen walls against the kings and princes 
(1:18). He says that surely the great men are acquainted 
with the mishpat of Yahweh; but, no! They are backsliders, 
who have broken the yoke (Jer. 5:5, 6). He prepares an 
object-lesson for the rulers (19:1). He exhorts the royal 
house to execute mishpat (21 : 12; 22 : 1-3). The ruling classes 



PROPHETS AND THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 153 

shall drink the wine of the wrath of Yahweh (25:15-18). 
Ezekiel compares the rulers to shepherds that eat the sheep. 
For this cause, Yahweh is against the rulers; and the national 
god himself will feed the people in mishpat (Ezek. 34:1-24). 

This is but a fraction of the abundant evidence proving 
that the literary prophets, and the classes for whom they 
spoke, were strongly opposed to the ruling powers in the 
Hebrew nation. 

The hostility of the prophets to the ruling powers took an 
interesting form in their opposition to the "gibborim." — We 
saw that the great revolt under David was put down by 
the assistance of mercenary troops, or hired "strong men," 
and that by their aid Solomon was elevated to the throne 
against the wishes of the peasantry {supra, pp. 141-43). In 
the Hebrew text, these men of power are called gibborim 
(plural, II Sam. 17:8). They were among the principal tools 
used by the kings in maintaining the government. It was 
the gibborim who garrisoned the royal strongholds that held 
the country in awe. In cases where the peasants refused to 
submit, bands of gibborim were sent out by the kings and the 
great nobles. Through them the peasantry were "civilized"; 
and through them, apparently, the Amorite law was enforced 
in opposition to the old mishpat. 

Hence the prophets were very bitter against these tools 
of the ruling class. Hosea writes: "Thou didst trust in thy 
way, in the multitude of thy gibborim; therefore shall a tumult 
arise against thy people; and all thy fortresses shall be 
destroyed" (Hos. 10:13, 14). Amos, the shepherd, says that 
when Yahweh shall punish the land, the gibborim shall fall: 
"FHght shall perish from the swift .... neither shall the 
gibbor deliver himself; neither shall he stand that handleth 
the bow; and he that is swift of foot shall not deliver him- 
self; .... and he that is courageous among the gibborim 
shall flee away naked in that day, saith Yahweh" (Amos 



154 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

2:14-16). In the same spirit, Isaiah classes the paid police 
with the nobles who hire them. Yahweh will take away the 
gibbor, and the man of war, and the judge, and the captain 
of fifty, and the counsellor, and the honorable man, etc. (Isa. 
3:1,2). At the time of the Babylonian exile, the King of 
Babylon took many of these gibborim away from Judah and 
carried them into his own land (II Kings 24: 16). 

The social struggle had a great deal to do with the question of 
property in land. — The problem of the Bible becomes increas- 
ingly vivid and concrete when we realize that it had much to 
do with the land question. Samuel's warning about the mish- 
pat of the kingdom puts heavy emphasis upon the concen- 
tration of landed property in the hands of the nobles (I Sam. 
8:14, 15). Elijah condemned King Ahab for seizing the land 
of Naboth (I Kings, chap. 21). Micah and Isaiah condemned 
the ruling class for adding house to house and field to field 
(Mic. 2:1, 2; Isa. 3:14; 5:8). Ezekiel demands that the 
prince shall not seize the people's land to thrust them out; 
so that the people shall not be scattered every man from his 
possession (Ezek. 46:18). The Book of Deuteronomy, which 
is impregnated with the prophetic spirit, curses the removal 
of landmarks (Deut. 19:14; 27:17). 

The prophets make no distinction between seizing land, 
as Ahab did in the case of Naboth, and foreclosing a mortgage. 
In their view, all concentration of land is practically in the 
same category, because it alienates the soil from the ancient 
families and clanships. 

The prophets regard the Hebrew nation as a clan brother- 
hood, or group of blood relatives. — Here, in a nutshell, is one 
phase of the idea revolving in the minds of the prophets, and 
less clearly in the untutored thought of their oppressed con- 
stituents: The Hebrew nation was regarded as an extension 
of the primitive clan. Amos refers to the people of his day as 
the "clan" (mishphachah) which Yahweh brought up out of 



PROPHETS AND THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 155 

the land of Egypt (3:1).' Repeatedly they are called the 
" children " (banim) of Israel (Amos 3:1; 9:7; Hos. i : 1 1 ; etc.) . 
Again, they are spoken of as the "house," or "family," of 
Israel (bayith, Amos 5:1; Mic. 1:5; Hos. 5:1; etc.). These 
terms are not mere symbols, or figures of speech. They are 
used by the prophets in their literal sense. The Hebrew nation 
is looked upon as a group of blood-relatives, descended straight 
from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, their nomadic forefathers. 

The persistence of the ancient, clan psychology explains the 
prophetic attitude on morals and economics. — Regarding the 
nation in this way, as a mere extension of the clan, it was easy 
for the prophets to apply the ethics of the clan to the social 
problems around them. The Hebrew nation was a group of 
brothers. Therefore the individual members of the nation 
ought to treat each other like brothers. For instance, when 
a poor Israelite is forced to borrow in order to pay taxes, or 
to float himself over a bad season, the more fortunate, wealthy 
Israelite should open his bounty and lend freely without 
asking interest. The debtor should be treated with great con- 
sideration by the creditor as touching the matter of repay- 
ment. It was an abomination for a creditor to take the 
personal property, or the land, of a poor debtor who was 
unable to meet his liabihties. It was equally abominable to 
reduce the debtor to slavery in order to work out a loan. We 
noticed that the debtor class augmented the following of David 
at the cave of AduUam, far back in the time of King Saul 
(I Sam. 22:2); and a typical case is found in the time of EHsha, 
in the ninth century: "Now there cried a certain woman, of 
the wives of the sons of the prophets, unto Elisha, saying. Thy 
servant my husband is dead; and thou knowest that thy serv- 
ant did fear Yahweh; and the creditor is come to take unto 
him my two children to be bondmen'' (II Kings 4:1). A 
more impressive illustration from a later period follows: 

' See "Kinship Institutions of Israel," chap, vi, supra, p. 47. 



156 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

Then there arose a great cry of the people and of their wives against 

their brethren We are mortgaging our fields, and our vineyards, 

and our houses. Let us get grain because of the dearth. There were 
also those that said, We have borrowed money for the king's tribute 
upon our fields and our vineyards. Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of 
our brethren, our children as their children. And, lo, we bring into 

bondage our sons and our daughters to be slaves Neither is it in 

our power to help it ; for other men have our fields and our vineyards 
(Neh. 5:1-5; italics ours). 

Another good illustration is found in the Book of Job. 
The famous hero of this book is "perfect and upright"; and 
he fears Yahweh (1:1, 8). Job, like Abraham, represents 
the primitive social type; for he is a shepherd, and has large 
possessions in flocks and herds. Speaking from the standpoint 
of his fear of Yahweh, his righteousness, and his primitive 
social outlook, he describes the foreclosure of mortgages, and 
its effects, as follows: 

There are those that remove the landmarks. They violently take 

away flocks They drive away the ass of the fatherless. They 

take the widow's ox for a pledge. They turn the needy out of the way 
(Job 24:2-4; itahcs ours). 

Job goes forth to the law court at the city gate, where the 
princes and the nobles hold him in profound awe and the 
greatest respect. He examines the cases that are before the 
court. He delivers the needy, and helps the fatherless. He 
confounds the unrighteous, and rescues the helpless prey of 
the wicked. His mishpat is like a diadem and a robe (Job 
29: 7-17). But all this benignant activity is, of course, purely 
ideal. It is what the prophets and their friends would like to 
see, but not what actually exists. The stern reality is pictured 
by Amos when he says, "They hate him that reproveth in 
the gate; and they abhor him that speaketh uprightly" 
(Amos 5:10). 

The prophets declare that the claims of kinship avail 
nothing. Wealthy creditors refuse to abandon their unbrotherly 



PROPHETS AND THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 157 

practices. "They hunt every man his brother with a net" 
(Mic. 7:2). "No man spareth his brother" (Isa. 9:19). 
"Trust ye not in any brother; for every brother will utterly 
supplant" (Jer. 9:4). 

The literary prophets do not stand for "human rights" in 
the abstract. — It should now be emphasized that, in spite 
of all their championship of the needy and the oppressed, 
the prophets never at any time stood for what we today call 
"human rights." This is proved by ample evidence. Let 
us take a concrete illustration: While the prophets were 
against the enslavement of Hebrews hy Hebrews, they did 
not oppose the institution of human slavery, even among 
their own people; for they thought it "right" for Israelites 
to hold slaves from other nations. Thus, Jeremiah declaims 
against human slavery only in a limited sense : 

The word that came unto Jeremiah from Yahweh .... that every 
man should let his man-slave, and every man his woman-slave, that 
is a Hebrew or a Hebrewess, go free; that none should make bondmen of 
them — of a Jew his brother (Jer. 34:8, 9). 

In this passage the prophet refers to a number of laws that 
had been well known to the Hebrew people for many years. 
These laws are now found scattered through the Pentateuch. 
According to a regulation found in the E document, a Hebrew 
might hold another Hebrew as a slave for six years only; 
and after that he was to let his "brother" go free (Exod. 21:2). 
This ordinance, or custom, or mishpat, is repeated, almost 
word for word, in another place (Deut. 15:12); and it seems 
to be the basis of Jeremiah's utterance (cf. Jer. 34:12-16). 
Indeed, we may search the pages of the literary prophets 
in vain to find a single instance in which the question of human 
slavery in the abstract is discussed. Amos passes over it in 
silence. Micah says nothing about it. Isaiah makes no men- 
tion of it. Hosea does not raise the subject. And so with 
all the prophets. Their attitude with reference to human 



158 SOCIOLOGIC\L STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

slavery as an institution, and with reference to "human rights" 
in the abstract, is the same as that of the Old Testament as 
a whole. ^ 

The head of the Hebrew house was the haal, or owner of 
wife, children, and slaves. He bought his wife; and he could 
sell his children (p. 41, supra). The so-called "tenth" com- 
mandment is a clear and absolute recognition of human slavery 
(p. 50). Moreover, the institution of slavery is legalized 
and regulated by an ordinance in the Book of Leviticus, which 
we have already considered, and we quote again: 

As for thy bondmen and thy bondmaids whom thou shah have: Of 
the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and 
bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that sojourn 
among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with 
you, which they have begotten in your land; and they shall be your 
possession. And ye shall make them for an inheritance for your children 
after you, to hold for a possession. Of them shall ye take your bondmen 
forever. But over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not 
rule, one over another, with rigor (Lev. 25:44-46). 

Thus we find ourselves returning again and again to the 
standpoint of the primitive clan. This is fundamentally the 
prophetic point of view; the prophets take it, in common with 
the authors of the other books of the Old Testament. It is 
not right for the children of Israel to hold each other as bond- 
men; but they may hold foreigners in slavery forever. It 
is not right for the children of Israel to lend to each other 
upon interest; but they may lend to foreigners upon interest 
(Deut. 23:19, 20; Exod. 22:25-27). The children of Israel 
shall not eat tainted meat, coming from an animal that has 
died of itself; but they may give it to the sojourner to eat, 
or sell it to a foreigner (Deut. 14:21). 

These considerations make it clear that the prophets were 
not "democrats" in the modern, present-day sense of the word. 

^ We have already considered this phase of the subject in our study of kinship and 
industry in Israel (chaps. \ i and vii, supra) ; so that once more the results of previous 
investigation fall into place as we advance into the problem. 



PROPHETS AND THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 159 

They faithfully did their best, according to the light they had, 
even to the adventuring of their lives. There can be no real 
religious gain in viewing the prophets as "democrats." Their 
morality, at its best, was a matter of partial vision. The 
prophets have been credited with a loftier morality than they 
really expounded, for the simple reason that statements 
which mean one thing in the Hebrew version appear to mean 
something else in a modern translation. Suppose we read 
the famous passage which the King James Version translates 
thus: "What doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly, 
and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" 
Now, the modern layman reads into this passage all the mean- 
ing with which these particular modern words are charged 
at the present time; and the modern scholar, too, is con- 
stantly in danger of being caught in the same toils, unless he 
bears in mind the meaning of the Hebrew and the social situa- 
tion in which the Hebrew passage itself was written. A 
much more literal and scientifically faithful translation of 
the above passage reads as follows: "What does Yahweh 
require of thee but to do mishpat?'' etc. In the first place, 
the idea of Yahweh has the force which we have seen attaching 
to it in ancient Israel. But the central thought is the doing 
of mishpat, which inevitably means no more than we have been 
showing that it actually meant in the writings of the prophets 
and elsewhere in the Bible. The prophets, then, were not 
exponents of modern morals; and this fact has to be carried 
clearly in mind as we study the development of Bible religion.' 

' The New Testament, as we shall s » later, is as far from the modern point of 
view as the Old Testament. The question of human rights is not considered in the 
gospels; but in the epistles the legality and rightfulness of slavery are conceded. 
Slaves are exhorted to be obedient unto their owners (Eph. 6:5, 8; Col. 3:22; I Tim. 
6:1; Titus 2:9). In these passages, the original Greek reads "bondservant," or 
"slave," as indicated in the American Revised Version, margin; but the King James 
translation renders by the word "servant," without comment. The apostle Paul 
sent a fugitive Christian slave back to his master (Letter to Philemon). The New 
Testament, however, can be counted on the side of freedom through its principle of 
brotherly love which, if carried out, leads to a broadening justice. 



i6o SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

Thus, the prophetic opposition to the wealthy had no affinity 
with modern radicalism or socialism. — The Bible has been quoted 
in modern times as an authority for social radicalism. The 
hobby-rider has gone to it in search of material to support 
his cause. Passages that seem to favor his program of revolu- 
tion have been cited, while the rest of the Bible has been 
ignored. His interest in the Scriptures attaches only to a 
few verses or passages. In other words, particular texts 
have been used without knowing what they signify in the 
original tongues, and, above all, without studying their 
context — i.e., the other material which bears on their meaning. 
Our present study, as far as we have gone, shows what a 
mistake it is to use the Bible in this way. 

We have seen that Hebrew society, like all ancient civiliza- 
tion, consisted of two classes, the upper and the lower. ^ The 
upper class was composed of the householders, who were 
called in Hebrew the haals. This term indicates ownership, 
or possession. The power of the master-class took legal form 
in two ways — first, in its ownership of the remainder of the 
population; second, in its ownership of the land. These 
institutions were maintained by physical force. When the 
Hebrew nation arose at the point of coalescence between 
Israelites and Amorites, two ideas about human relations 
came into conflict. Although these ideas were expressed in a 
great many ways, they turned largely around the subject of 
landed property, because every human being is vitally affected 
by his relation to the land. Now, it is a law of social evolu- 
tion that the administration, or "government," of any social 
group will represent the interests that are active enough to 
control it.^ The fact that a large part of the population was 

' Chaps, vi and vii, supra, pp. 40-62. 

* This law is as absolute and certain as any law within the field of science in 
general. It is illustrated by all history; and is no more true of the Hebrew nation than 
it is of the Egj^jtians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Germans, English, Chinese, or 
any other people. 



PROPHETS AND THE MI SEP AT STRUGGLE i6i 

already organized around the commercial view of landholding 
constrained the machinery of the national government in support 
of that view. While the more directly Israelite part of the 
nation succeeded in placing a few kings on the throne, and in 
promulgating a national "platform" in the shape of the 
earher Old Testament "law-codes," the pressure of commercial 
civilization crowded hard upon the genial sentiments which Israel 
imported from the clan life of the desert. 

What the prophets really fought against, in their fierce 
denunciations of the wealthy, was the contraction of the 
master-class upon itself, and the crowding of the less fortunate 
haals, their widows, and orphans into the lower, enslaved class. 
The prophets never protested against human slavery, or any 
other institution whose logic ultimately denies "human rights." 
As a consequence, they have no affinity with modern democ- 
racy. The prophets are to be compared to the alert, modern 
businessman who pays no heed to the "wage question" as 
it affects the "laboring class," but who protests vigorously 
against the competition of his big rival. Whatever the proph- 
ets, and the Bible in general, have to say about the subject 
of wealth and property must be studied in full view of all the 
Bible facts. The writings of the prophets are virtually a 
series of ex parte pamphlets in which only one phase of the 
issue is voiced.' Take the following passages, for instance, 
from the books of Amos and Micah; read them in view of 
the considerations with which we have been occupied; and 
remember that these men came from small country villages in 
Judah : 

Woe to them that are at ease in Zion [the capital of the Southern 
Kingdom], and to them that are secure in the mountain of Samaria [the 
capital of the Northern Kingdom]— the notable men of the chief of the 
nations, to whom the house of Israel come Ye that put far away 

' It may be well to say again that we are not finding fault with the proph.ts, 
but merely stating facts about them. They had to work in view of existing conditions; 
and they did their best according to the light they had. 



i62 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

the evil day, and cause the seat of violence to come near ; that lie upon 
beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches, and eat the 
lambs out of the flock, and the calves out of the midst of the stall; that 
sing idle songs to the sound of the viol; that invent for themselves 
instruments of music, like David's; that drink wine in bowls, and 
anoint themselves with the chief oils; but they are not grieved for the 

affliction of Joseph The lord Yahweh hath sworn by himself, 

saith Yahweh the god of hosts: I abhor the pride of Jacob, and hate his 
palaces. Therefore will I deliver up the city and all that is therein (Amos 
6:1,3-6,8). 

I hate, I despise your feasts, and I will not smell in your solemn 
assemblies.' Yea, though ye offer me your burnt offerings and meal 
offerings, I will not accept them; neither will I regard the peace-offerings 
of your fat beasts. Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs, 
for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. But let mishpat roll down like 
waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream (Amos 5:21-24). 

Woe to them that devise iniquity and work evil upon their beds! 
When the morning is light, they practice it, because it is in the power 
of their hand. And they covet fields, and seize them; and houses, and 
take them away. And they oppress a man and his family, even a man 
and his heritage (Mic. 2:1-2). 

What is the transgression of Jacob ? Is it not Samaria ? And what 
are the high places of Judah ? Are they not Jerusalem ? Therefore 
I will make Samaria as a heap of the field, as places for planting vine- 
yards; and I will pour down the stones thereof into the valley; and I 
will uncover the foundations thereof (Mic. 1:5, 6). 

And I said. Hear, I pray you, ye heads of Jacob, and rulers of the 
house of Israel: Is it not for you to know mishpat? — ye who hate the 
good and love the evil; who pluck off their skin from off them, and their 
flesh from off their bones; who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay 
their skin from off them, and break their bones, and chop them in pieces 

as for the pot, and as flesh within the cauldron Therefore shall 

Zion for your sake be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become 
heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest 
(Mic. 3:1-3, 12). 

I In primitive religion, the gods were supposed to draw near and smell the smoke 
of the incense and of the cooked food as it rolled upward. Thus David says to Saul: 
"If Yahweh hath stirred thee up against me, let him smell an ojfering" (I Sam. 26:19). 
In the Iliad of the Greeks the gods do the same. In the Babylonian tablets, the gods 
are described as flocking about the altar and inhaling the sacrifice. 



PROPHETS AND THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 163 

These highly interesting and well-written passages are not 
scientific evidence about the merits of the transactions lying 
in the background. They are the outcries of tv/o very bewil- 
dered countrymen, protesting in the name of their ancestral 
deity against conditions and practices that bear hard on the 
social class from which Amos and Micah sprang. The preju- 
dice of the small, country property-holder against the 
wealthy class in the centers of population is so clearly in evi- 
dence that it cannot be denied. The prophetic protests read 
well; and they read still better if taken out of their context 
as a basis for homiletic discourse. But in the present investiga- 
tion, we have to take them in view of the Bible as a whole. 
While they are not impartial, scientific evidence about the 
merits of the Hebrew social problem, they are scientific evi- 
dence touching the thoughts of certain persons and classes in 
the Hebrew nation. The prophets, indeed, raise the social 
problem without solving it. While they are evidently dealing 
with public, institutional questions, their point of view per- 
mits them to treat these questions only in terms of individual- 
ism. According to their view, all the troubles of the world 
arise from the bad will of certain individuals — chiefly rich 
persons. For the prophets denounce the mischiefs that 
spring from slavery (private monopoly of human labor) 
and landownership (or private monopoly of the soil) — they 
denounce the evils attending these law-established institu- 
tions, while at the same time they either tacitly or explicitly 
advocate the continuance of these institutions. So Jeremiah, 
the last of the great pre-exilic thinkers and the heir of all the 
pre-exilic prophets, demands only the release of Hebrew slaves 
from bondage; tacitly indorses the institution of slavery as 
touching non-Hebrews ; and looks forward to the continuance 
of private landownership (34:8-16; 32:15, 43, 44). In this 
regard, the prophet Jeremiah stands upon common ground with 
the other prophets. The troubles of humanity, according to 



i64 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

these men, are chiefly due to the rich, who exclude the less 
fortunate Hebrew free men from a legal title to ownership in 
the world. ^ 

The prophets divided into two schools — ^for and against the 
ancient "mishpat" of Yahweh. — It now becomes necessary to 
point out that from a very early period in the national struggle 
the prophets began to divide into two schools corresponding to 
the parties in the great conflict. Thus the prophet Nathan, 
of the Amorite city of Jerusalem, took the side of Solomon 
against the peasantry. On the other hand, the prophet 
Ahijah, of the Israelite village of Shiloh, came out on the 
opposite side (I Kings i:8, 11-45; 11:26-40). Nathan and 
Ahijah mark the faint beginnings of a movement that split the 
company of prophets in twain. Although the kings and 
wealthy officials were denounced by men like Amos, they 
were supported, on the other hand, by a large and influential 
class of prophets. The Amos-prophets upheld the ancient, 
Israelite mishpat of Yahweh. But the other class of prophets 
upheld the legal and moral usages and ideas inherited from the 
Amorite side of the nation's ancestry, and they identified 
Yahweh therewith. The perplexing part of the situation was, 
that both classes of prophets thought they knew the will of 
Yahweh and believed they were speaking self-evident truths. 
As for the nation as a whole, it knew not which prophets to 

' One of the moral tragedies of history is the assumption that the prophetic doc- 
trine is a final statement of the social problem, and that it can be transferred bodily 
from ancient to modem times without scientific criticism or interpretation. Our 
thesis at this point is, that while the prophets are actually discussing the social problem, 
they conduct their argument only in terms of individualism without realizing the true 
nature of their subject, and therefore without having a real social program. A case 
in point is furnished by Professor A. F. Kirkpatrick, of Cambridge University, who 
has given us one of the useful and scholarly modem handbooks on the prophets. 
"No doubt," writes Kirkpatrick, "there were not a few among the wealthy nobles of 
Micah's day who prided themselves on not being guilty of injustice. Yes! perhaps 
they were entirely within their legal rights when they seized the land of some poor 
neighbor who through bad seasons and misfortune and pressure of heavy taxes had 
failed to pay his debts and fallen into their power. But was conduct Uke that 
brotherly?" — The Doctrine of the Prophets (London, 1901), pp. 225, 226. 



PROPHETS AND THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 165 

follow. The consequence was that a man believed the prophet 
whose words appealed to him. So the nation was divided in a 
way that suggests the parties in a modern political campaign. 

It is hard to find the terms that will justly describe these 
two classes of prophets. The Amos-class might in some ways 
be appropriately called the "protestant" prophets; while 
the others, who supported the kings and nobles, might be called 
the "ofiicial" prophets. Again, the two schools might respect- 
ively be termed "radical" and "conservative," or "liberal" 
and "tory." But there are objections to all these terms. On 
the whole, it seems best to call the prophets who upheld the 
kings and wealthy classes the "regulars," while the Amos- 
prophets may be spoken of as "insurgents." 

In the background of the writings of all the "insurgent" 
prophets, as we shall now caU them, we can plainly see the 
opposing school of prophecy. There was as much difficulty 
then as now in finding words that clearly distinguish the 
two schools. In most cases, the "regular" prophets are 
called simply "the prophets"; and we have to depend upon 
the context in order to find out which prophetic school is 
meant. After Amos had uttered his message in the streets of 
Bethel, he was told by the king's priest not to prophesy 
any more in that place, but to flee away to Judah, where he 
belonged, and there "eat bread" and prophesy there (Amos 
7:10-13). The king's priest here touches, in a word, upon 
the economic distinction between the regular and insurgent 
prophets. He is well acquainted with the king's prophets 
who preach for "bread," or wages; and he assumes that Amos 
would not be preaching unless he were paid for it by some- 
body. The only way in which Amos can show the priest that 
he is not a hireling prophet is by means of a paradox: He 
replies that he is neither a prophet nor a son of a prophet; but 
he is a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore trees; and Yahweh 
moved him to leave his home in Judah, and go to prophesy 



i66 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

in Israel (Amos 7:14, 15). It is but scant courtesy that he 
gets from the royal priest; and he gives but scant courtesy 
in return. One can imagine that if it had not been for the 
presence of a crowd of sympathetic and muscular shep- 
herds and farmers, attending the market-fair at Bethel, 
the life of Amos would not have been worth much on the 
memorable day when he invaded the streets of the Ephraimite 
village. 

The line of distinction thus indicated between the two 
schools of prophecy reappears again and again. Listen to 
Micah: "Hear this, I pray you, ye heads of Jacob and rulers 
of the house of Israel, who abhor mishpat and pervert all 
equity: They build up Zion with blood and Jerusalem with 
iniquity. The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests 
thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money. " 
These regular prophets make war on all who put not into 
their mouths; yet they lean upon Yahweh, and say, "Is not 
Yahweh in the midst of us? No evil shall come upon us." 
They are prophets of Yahweh; but they uphold the usages 
and ideas which the nation got from the Amorite side of its 
descent; so they are the prophets "that make the people to 
err" (Mic. 3:5-11). 

Isaiah declares that the most contemptible figure against 
which the insurgent prophets contend is the regular 
prophet; for he says that while the elder is the head, the 
prophet who teaches "lies" is the tail (9:15).^ He is a drunk- 
ard, swallowed up of wine, and staggering with strong drink 
(Isa. 28:7). He will be taken away by Yahweh, along with 
his employers and associates in the upper class (3:1-8). 
He shall stumble in the night, says Hosea (4:5). He is a 
fool; and the snare of the bird-catcher is in all his ways 

^ This verse is taken to be a "gloss" by many scholars; but in the present case 
it makes little difference whether the passage were written by the original prophet, 
or by some later editor. In such cases, it is not necessary for the sociological student 
to go into the literary and historical criticism. 



PROPHETS AND THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 167 

(Hos. 9:7, 8). Zephaniah declares that the regular prophet 
is a light and treacherous person (3:4). 

But the bitterest invectives against these prophets were 
uttered by Jeremiah, the last of the great insurgents before 
the Exile. They shall be ashamed, along with the whole 
house of Israel (Jer. 2:26). They prophesy falsely; and 
then, by this means, the priests have dominion (Jer. 5:31; 
6:13; 8:10). The regular prophets shall be dashed one 
against the other without pity or compassion (13 : 13, 14). The 
Temple of Yahweh at Jerusalem shall be destroyed like the 
House of Yahweh at Shiloh; and the city shall be desolate 
without inhabitant (26:1-9). On account of these utter- 
ances, Jeremiah was arrested, and brought before the court 
of nobles, at the gate of the Temple. He was indicted by 
the regular prophets and their friends for high treason; and 
his accusers demanded that he be put to death (26:11). 
It was a dramatic scene — one of the greatest moments in 
Hebrew history, reminding us of the appearance of Martin 
Luther before the Diet of Worms. Jeremiah's life was in 
danger. But he had friends and influence, even among the 
official classes whom he denounced; and although he was 
frowned upon, as Amos was at Bethel, he was not condemned 
by the court (26:16-24).^ The fact is, that while both 
schools of prophecy wanted to be authoritative in the eyes of the 
entire nation, each school had a powerful constituency; and the 
nation itself was divided into parties. 

The modern historical study of the Bible has focused atten- 
tion upon one of the great prophetic schools (the insurgent) 
as a positive, creative element in the evolution of Bible reli- 

' The elders of Judah, who spoke in favor of Jeremiah upon this occasion, and 
favored his release from the charge of high treason, did not necessarily indorse the 
platform of the insurgent prophets; but they were aware that Jeremiah had many 
sympathizers and adherents; and they knew that his death might be followed by a 
bloody revolution such as had already occurred more than once. Jeremiah was 
released on the technical ground that he had spoken in good faith "in the name of 
Yahweh" (Jer. 26:16). 



i68 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

gion. And if we now resolve the historical method into socio- 
logical terms, we shall at once lift the ''regular" school into 
prominence as an equally necessary factor in the national 
development. It is hard for us to realize that the insurgent 
prophets of the Hebrews began their work as members of a 
proscribed and illegal sect, without official recognition by the 
public authorities. 

PROVISIONAL TABLE OF THE HEBREW PROPHETS 

ExmBiTiNG Their Division into Opposing Schools* 
"Regulars" "Insurgents" 

Nathan of Jerusalem (I Kings i : 8) Ahijah of Shiloh (I Kings, chap, ii) 
Shemaiah (II Chron. 1 2 : 5-8) Jehu ben Hanani (I Kings, chap. 16) 

ZedekiahbenChenaanah(IKings, Elijah of Gilead (I Kings, chaps. 
. chap. 22) 17 f.) 

Jonah ben Amittai (II Kings, Micaiah ben Imlah (I Kings, chap. 

14:25) 22) 

Hananiah ben Azzur (Jer., chap. EHsha ben Shaphat (I Kings, 

28) chaps. 19 f.) 

Shemaiah the Nehelemite (Jer., *Amos of Tekoa 

chap. 29) 
Ahab ben Kolaiah (Jer., chap. 29) *Hosea ben Beeri 
Zedekiah ben Maaseiah (Jer., *Micah of Moresheth 

chap. 29) 
*Nahum *Isaiah ben Amoz 

*Obadiah *Zephaniah ben Cushi 

Anonymous prophets (passim) *Jeremiah ben Hilkiah 

Urijah of Kiriath-jearim (Jer. 
chap. 26) 

* Starred names are represented by books in the Old Testament canon. Time: from 
David to the Babylonian exile. Note the greater proportion of insurgents in the canon as 
compared with regvilars. Jonah is not starred because the prophet of that name cannot 
be identified with the Book of Jonah. 

The issue between the opposing schools of prophecy was not 
settled until the Hebrew nation was destroyed. — The more care- 
fully we study the Old Testament, the more we are impressed 
by the unsettled nature of Hebrew history. This fact pene- 
trates our minds very slowly in all its breadth and meaning. 



PROPHETS AND THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 169 

As the layman casually or devoutly reads the Bible, it seems 
as if Hebrew life were based upon the firm ground of a solid, 
fixed authority which everybody in that age must have been 
constrained to admit and recognize. But the more closely 
the situation is investigated, the more its unsettled charac- 
ter impresses itself upon us. Instead of being solid, fixed, 
and founded in a way that was recognized by everybody, 
Hebrew hfe before the Babylonian exile was fluid, unsettled, 
uncertain, doubtful. There was no point of appeal which 
was final and authoritative in the eyes of the whole nation. 
This highly important aspect of the Bible problem comes 
before us with startling distinctness in the bitter contentions 
between the two schools of prophecy, each with its assured 
"Thus saith Yahweh. " Here indeed the situation seems to 
wind itself up into a tangle so confusing that at first no clue 
appears by which we may thread the dark maze of uncertainty 
and contradiction. 

Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel declare that the regular prophets 
preach out of their own heart; they speak not by the in- 
spiration of Yahweh (Jer. 23:9-40; 27:14-18; Ezek. 13:2). 
And Yahweh is against these prophets when they say "He 
saith" (Jer. 23 :3i). They utter lies when they say "Yahweh 
saith" (Ezek. 13:6, 7). Still another way of stating the case 
against the regular prophets appears in Ezekiel: They are 
deceived by Yahweh himself! (14:9.) They say ' 'Peace ! peace ! 
Is not Yahweh in the midst of us ? No evil shall come upon 
us" (Mic. 3:5, 11; Jer. 6:14; 14:13-18; 23:17; Ezek. 13:10, 
15). An extremely interesting and significant notice of the 
conflict between the two schools of prophecy is found in 
I Kings. Upon a very memorable occasion, four hundred 
regular prophets were gathered in the presence of King Ahab, 
advising him, in the name of Yahweh, to go forth to war 
against the Arameans. The king sat on a throne at the gate 
of Samaria, the capital city of Israel. The leader of the 



I70 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

prophets, Zedekiah ben Chenaanah, "made him horns of iron, 
and said, Thus saith Yahweh, With these shalt thou push the 
Arameans until they be consumed ' ' (I Kings 22:11). But now 
an opposing prophet comes upon the scene with a message of 
doom. This man, Micaiah ben Imlah, admits that the other 
prophets are inspired by Yahweh; but he says, "Behold, 
Yahweh hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy 
prophets. " At the same time, it is declared by Micaiah that 
the real word of Yahweh is not good but evil toward Ahab, 
and that the king will fall in battle with the Arameans (I Kings 
22:17-26).^ 

This interesting story implies that the test of a prophet 
is the fulfilment of prediction. Exactly the same test is 
put forward by the Book of Deuteronomy, as follows: "And 
if thou say in thy heart. How shall we know the word which 
Yahweh hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in 
the name of Yahweh, if the thing follow not, nor come to 
pass, that is the thing which Yahweh hath not spoken. The 
prophet hath spoken it presumptuously. Thou shalt not be 
afraid of him" (Deut. 18:21, 22). This would appear to be 
quite conclusive; but, in reality, it does not go to the heart 
of the issue between the two schools of prophecy. 

Elsewhere in the Book of Deuteronomy it is admitted 
that any prophet may utter a word that will come true; and 
in place of this test it substitutes the doctrine that a prophet 
who advocates the worship of other gods beside Yahweh 
(meaning primarily the Baals of the Amorites) is not to be 
followed, even though his words are fulfilled and his predic- 
tions come to pass! (13:1-5; 18:20.)^ Thus the Book of 
Deuteronomy completely eliminates prediction as a test of 

' As Professor Skinner says with reference to Zedekiah, "There is no reason to 
doubt the sincerity of this man's belief in his own inspiration" (Commentary on Kings 
[New York], p. 266). 

2 When speaking of "other gods," the Book of Deuteronomy means primarily 
the Baals of the Amorites (6: 14; 31 : 16). 



PROPHETS AND THE MISHPAT STRUGGLE 171 

prophecy, and puts instead of it the purely contemporary prin- 
ciple that the prophets are to be distinguished hy the gods whose 
worship they advocate. In harmony with this test, Jeremiah 
declares that the prophets who oppose him prophesy by Baal 
(2:8; 23:13). These two Judean writers, Jeremiah and the 
author of Deuteronomy, worked at a very late period of 
Hebrew history, in the seventh century B.C., near the time of 
the Babylonian exile; and they were the first of the Judeans 
to take the Baals up explicitly into the terms of the mishpat 
struggle. This remarkable fact leads to another chapter of 
exposition. 



CHAPTER XIX 

THE MI SEP AT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 

The national struggle at length took the form of a conflict 
between the Yahweh and Baal factors in the Hebrew cult. — The 
great Hebrew conflict over the problem of law and morals 
found expression at last in the form of rivalry between the gods 
inherited from both sides of the nation's descent. The con- 
test of Yahweh against the native Baal-principle was abso- 
lutely necesssary to the development of Bible religion. In 
no other way could the religion of Israel have achieved the 
double result of becoming completely identified with the 
struggle for morality and of casting out polytheism. This 
is the central feature of the problem. The final result of 
Hebrew history was the uniting of the moral principle with 
the doctrine of One God. The moral struggle and the 
cult rivalry cannot be treated as matters independent of 
each other. The religion of the Bible makes its appeal to 
mankind as a principle which identifies God not only with 
the worldwide struggle against injustice, but with a fierce 
conflict against polytheism. The two ideas were fused into 
a single idea in the glowing heat of Israel's warfare. Poly- 
theism was gradually identified with injustice; and by the 
same token, monotheism slowly came to stand for justice. 
But neither monotheism nor ethics won the battle by itself. 
The religion of the Bible did not achieve its victory over other 
cults merely because it called for men to bow down to One 
God rather than to many gods; nor did it rise to its final 
triumph on the basis of the moral issue as an abstract prin- 
ciple. Neither aspect of Bible religion could have been 
woven into results of permanent value on the field of history 

172 



MIS HP AT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 173 

without the other. Both phases of the rehgious evolution 
of Israel had to be perceived as an identity; and this result 
was at length secured when the mishpat struggle took the form 
of warfare between the Yahweh and Baal ideas which came 
from both sides of the nation's ancestry. It was only through 
a mighty explosion within the Hebrew cult itself that the 
religion of Israel became a universally exclusive principle. 
It was only in the process of wiping out the native Baal idea 
pertaining to the Hebrew religion itself that the evolutionary 
process came to a clear issue. So long as Yahweh continued 
to be worshiped by one party in the state as a god having the 
same character as the Amorite Baals, and so long as the 
gods that were inherited from the Amorites remained, the 
religious evolution of Israel could not go on to its logical 
destiny. 

The initial stage of the "mishpat" struggle was a blind protest 
against the usages of oriental civilization. — The struggle within 
the Hebrew nation at first amounted only to a reaction of 
the highlanders against the monarchy, in which there was a 
blind protest by the more Israelite part of the kingdom against 
the usages of oriental civilization. The ideas and customs 
of the hill clans — especially in Judah and Gilead — were very 
similar to the usages of the desert people from which they 
descended. They turned against the rule of David. They 
were discontented under Solomon, the successor of David, 
" because he burdened the people with a heavy yoke." Finally 
they cast off the rule of Rehoboam, the successor of Solomon, 
because he would not reform the government. The hill clans 
objected to the new and strange customs that were being 
introduced by the national authorities; and their abhorrence 
was expressed in very forcible, dramatic ways (chap, xvii, 
p. 143). Thus we see that there was no question of rival 
worships in the initial stage of the mishpat struggle. Compe- 
tition between cults did not enter into the problem. The 



174 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

struggle did not at first assume the character of a contest 
between gods/ 

But this is not to say that the initial stage of the struggle 
within the Hebrew nation had no rehgious character in any 
respect. We have repeatedly emphasized the intimate con- 
nection between politics and religion throughout ancient 
society. The customs regulating social intercourse were 
invariably under the jurisdiction of the gods. In accordance 
with this principle, we have seen that the mishpat which the 
clans of Israel brought into the hill-country was identified 
with Yahweh, so that the oppression of the free clansmen 
under the monarchy was an outrage upon their ancestral 
religion. From this point of view, the Hebrew struggle had 
a religious quality, or aspect, at the very beginning, in its 
first period. But it did not at once take the form which is 
characteristic of the Old Testament, in which it reduces itseK 
to compact expression in terms of rivalry between Yahwism 
and Baalism. At first, there was nothing more than a blind 
protest, in the name of the national deity, against the legal 
usages that outraged the older customs of Yahweh; but this 
gave a natural point of departure for the entire subsequent 
unfolding of religious evolution among the Hebrews. The 
different stages that now follow draw themselves out in a 
logical order, each one arising from earlier conditions in the 
social life of the nation. 

The second stage of the "mishpat" struggle brought Yahweh 
into conflict with the "border-Baals." — ^The kings and ruling 
classes among the Hebrew people had striven, either con- 
sciously or unconsciously, to identify Yahweh, the national 

^ The condemnation of Solomon for worshiping the gods of surroimding peoples 
(I Kings II : 1-8, 32 f.) is recognized as an insertion in the spirit of Deuteronomy. 
Cf . Skinner, Commentary on Kings (New York) , pp. 1 73 f . But assuming for a 
moment that Ahijah's denunciation is historical, a number of important facts have 
to be noticed: (o) the prophet's words were privately whispered in a lonely field, 
vs. 29; {b) popular idolatry is nowhere alleged; (c) the references to "other gods" 
mention only the deities of outside peoples, not the Baals of the Amorites, vs. 2>2)' 



MISHPAT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 175 

god, with the usages of settled commercial civihzation. They 
did not abandon the worship of Yahweh. They acknowledged 
his lordship over the nation; and they supposed they were 
serving the same god whom the Israelite clans had brought 
into the country at the time of the original settlement in the 
Judges period. But the kings and official classes identified 
Yahweh with the standpoint of civilization as contrasted with 
the standpoint of the primitive clan. Now, civilization is a 
good thing in itself ; but if its benefits are overbalanced by its 
abuses, it becomes an evil. If it ignore the welfare of the 
humbler social classes, and provide only for the happiness of a 
small, wealthy, upper class, then civilization menaces the 
higher interests of mankind. 

This was the disease that afflicted the Egyptians, Babylo- 
nians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, and other advanced peoples of 
the oriental world. Their social polity was untempered by the 
brotherhood of the primitive clan. They smothered the ideas 
of justice that prevail among the backward nomadic peoples. 
Their slaves consisted not only of alien bondmen, but of the 
native-born peasantry.^ And while the great gods of the mighty 
Semitic empires were probably once the divinities of simple 
desert clansmen, these gods had been long ago transformed, or 
metamorphosed, into the deities of settled civilization, identi- 
fied with the customs, laws, and morals of commercial society. 
It was in the interest of this tendency that the official and 
wealthy classes of the Hebrew nation instinctively threw the 
weight of their influence. The kings and officials, as a rule, 
wanted to view the national god Yahweh in the character of a 
"civilized" Semitic deity, or Baal, having the same nature as 
the Baals of the wealthy Phoenicians, or the Baals inherited by 
the Hebrews from the Amorite side of their ancestry. 

In the case of the Egyptians, Babylonians, and other civilized 

'Cf. Breasted, History of Egypt (New York, 1905), p. 491; Luckenbill, Temple 
Documents from the Cassite Period (Chicago, 1907), p. 12. 



176 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

Semites the evolution of religion went parallel, in the long 
run, to the movement of society from nomadism; and the gods 
became the patrons of the legal usages favored by the very 
wealthy. But the development of Hebrew nationality, as we 
have already seen, was unlike the social evolution of any other 
ancient people (chap, x, p. 95). The Israelite invaders found 
the inhabitants of Canaan broken up into small provinces, and 
worshiping many local Baals. The Amorites had no national 
government and no national god. As a consequence, it was 
the invaders, and not the earlier population, who supplied the 
national politics and religion. Thus Yahweh, a god of primi- 
tive mishpat, was imposed with considerable abruptness upon 
a civilized people. The result of this was that the transforma- 
tion of Yahweh into a god of commercial civilization was 
obstructed. While the kings and wealthy classes wanted to 
worship the national divinity in the character of an ordinary 
Amorite, or "civilized," Semitic Baal, the more backward 
social classes persisted in connecting Yahweh with the morality 
of their Israelite ancestors. Thus at last we see that the great 
social-religious issue in the Hebrew nation came to revolve 
around the question of the baalizing of Yahweh. 

But the process by which the people awoke to this fact was 
gradual and painful. The human mind always moves very 
slowly in the perception of a complicated problem; and even 
after the facts of a problem are visible to the investigator, it 
is another matter of difficulty to find the appropriate words 
and phrases in which to describe the situation so that it will 
be clear to other minds. This was exactly the problem that 
confronted the Hebrew nation; and it pressed v/ith special 
force on the prophets, the spokesmen of the national interests, 
who were a long time in thinking themselves clear with refer- 
ence to the situation. The vast religious possibilities inclosed 
within the national experience revealed themselves only in a 
very gradual way to Israel's thinkers. The "insurgent " school 



MIS HP AT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 177 

of prophecy was drawn more and more into an attitude of 
opposition to the kings; and one royal house after another 
was thrown violently down (I Kings 11:26-31; 14:1-18; 
16:1-7). 

Following the history once more into the ninth century B.C. 
(900 to 800), it begins to be apparent that we are in the second 
stage of the Hebrew conflict. We have already considered 
this period from the economic standpoint (cf. p. 144) ; and we 
now take up the religious phase of the development. We 
have seen that the great prophet Elijah comes forward as the 
leading spokesman of this period. He utters an awful curse 
upon King Ahab in connection with the seizure of land belong- 
ing to the peasant Naboth (I Kings 21:17-26). The king 
had been acting under the influence of his Phoenician wife, 
Jezebel, whose former home was in the wealthy, commercial 
city of Sidon. Her advent as queen of Israel had been marked 
by introduction of the worship of the Baal of Sidon (I Kings 
16:30-32). The religious complications of the problem are 
indicated as follows by Professor Budde: 

Together wiih Baal-worship, foreign despotic methods were creeping 
into North Israel, and ever wider grew the chasm between the over- 
refined and sensuous Court and the oppressed and impoverished people 
who must furnish it the means for its exuberant luxury. Palestine was 
a small and relatively poor country, and it must have borne hard on its 
people when the king undertook to emulate the rich city-kings of the 
Phoenicians.^ 

Here, then, for the first time, the issue took on a positive, 
concrete religious form! The acts of Ahab, in importing a 
foreign Baal cult and in oppressing an Israehte freeman, struck 
in with terrific force upon the imagination, and gave the 
prophets a new method of handling the national problem. The 
policy of Ahab was like an electric shock to the nation; and 

' Budde, Religion of Israel to the Exile (New York, 1899), p. 119; italics ours; 
cf. W. Robertson Smith, Prophets of Israel (London, 1897), p. 95 ; Kent, History of the 
Hebrew People (New York, 1903), Vol. II, pp. 87, 88. 



178 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

it suggested a clearer and more definite appeal to the popular 
conscience. The national struggle now began to be linked, 
for the first time, with the clash of cults. It should be empha- 
sized that the warfare of the national, Hebrew Yahweh against 
"other gods" began as a war against the Baal of a near-by- 
people.' It is always easier to raise an issue by fighting your 
neighbor's gods than it is by fighting the gods of your own 
household. The dramatic importation of the foreign, Phoeni- 
cian Baal was necessary as a means of ultimately raising the 
issue of the local gods. In the struggle against "other gods" 
it was a matter of difficulty to begin with the native Baals 
because they were many, and they confused the mind. But 
the foreign Baal was one, and attention could easily be centered 
upon a strange cult. 

We shall never know how far the prophet Elijah went in his 
opposition to other gods. He has left us no writings of his 
own, as did the literary prophets of the following century. 
There is no record that he conducted any struggle against the 
local Baal-worship of the Hebrews; and he is connected 
chiefly with the dramatic fight against the foreign Baal. 
Reforms usually come slowly; and one change at a time seems 
to have been aU that the sluggish pubhc opinion of Israel, with 
its dark underlying mass of crude religious ideas, was capable 
of putting into effect. But Elijah may have been using the 
Sidonian Baal in a statesman-Hke way as a means of raising 
the issue of the local gods later. This conjecture agrees with 
the general atmosphere of the Elijah stories; and there is one 
bit of positive evidence pointing in the same direction. It is 
said that when Elijah met Ahab, at the close of the great 
drouth, he cast the blame for the dry season upon the king, 
because he had forsaken the commandments of Yahweh 

^The struggle in the Judges period was different (see chap. xi). In that case, 
it stood for the military antagonism of two distinct peoples; but the memory of that 
struggle was operative in the minds of the prophets, as the books of Judges and 
Deuteronomy prove. 



MISHPAT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 179 

and followed ''the Baals'' (I Kings 18:18). The plural, 
not the singular, form is used here; and it is preceded by the 
definite article "the" Qia-Baal-im) . Although Elijah goes 
on directly to oppose the Sidonian Baal, this is no proof that 
he did not have the local Baals in mind as a later object of 
attack.^ 

After Elijah protested against the Baal of the Phoenician 
city of Sidon, he spoke against the Baal of the Philistine city 
of Ekron (II Kings 1:2, 3, 6, 16). To the same effect, the 
JE documents denounce the Baal of Peor, i.e., Chemosh, the 
god of Moab, and also the gods of Aramea (Num. 25:1, 2,3,5; 
Gen. 35:2). The J and E writers are shown by modern criti- 
cism to have worked probably soon after the time of Ehjah; 
and it is clear that in their documents the religious point of 
view, as regards opposition to "other gods," is on a level with 
Elijah's protest against the Baals of Sidon and Ekron. We 
have now reached a point in our study where the generalization 
may be ventured that the Hebrew struggle entered the second 
stage by putting Yahweh into opposition to the border-Baals, 
the gods of neighboring lands. 

As a result of the growing protest against foreign cults, 
Jehoram, an early successor of Ahab as king of Northern Israel, 
put away an obelisk, or pillar, that had been used in Baal- 
worship (II Kings 3:1, 2). But the climax of the campaign 
waged by Elijah and Elisha was the terrible revolution of 
Jehu, in which the house of Ahab went down in torrents of 
blood. We reproduce from Kings a passage bearing on this 
awful change in the government. 

And Elisha the prophet called one of the sons of the prophets, and 
said unto him, Gird up thy loins, and take this vial of oil in thy hand, 
and go to Ramoth-Gilead. And when thou comest thither, look out 
there Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi, and go in, and 

^ It has been suggested that the term Baalim refers to the Sidonian Baal, in this 
connection, as a "plural of dignity," just as elohim is applied to Yahweh; but this 
usage, with reference to a single foreign Baal, cannot be established. 



i8o SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

make him arise up from among his brethren, and carry him to an inner 
chamber. Then take the vial of oil, and pour it on his head, and say, 
Thus saith Yahweh, I have anointed thee king over Israel. Then open 
the door, and flee, and tarry not. So the young man, even the young man 
the prophet, went to Ramoth-Gilead. And when he came, behold, the 
captains of the host were sitting; and he said, I have an errand to thee, 
O captain. And Jehu said. Unto which of us all ? And he said. To 
thee, O captain. And he arose, and went into the house; and he poured 
the oil on his head, and said unto him. Thus saith Yahweh, the god of 
Israel, I have anointed thee king over the people of Yahweh, even over 
Israel. And thou shalt smite the house of Ahab thy master, that I 
may avenge the blood of my servants the prophets, and the blood of all 
the servants of Yahweh, at the hand of Jezebel. For the whole house of 
Ahab shall perish; and I will cut off from Ahab every man-child, and 
him that is shut up and him that is left at large in Israel (II Kings 9 : 1-8). 

This bloody charge was carried out to the letter. Jehu 
killed not only the reigning king of Israel, who was one of the 
sons of Ahab, but the king of Judah, who was visiting the 
northern monarch at that time; he trod under foot the dead 
body of Jezebel, and caused many of the royal princes of both 
kingdoms to be assassinated. After this he destroyed all that 
he could find of the priests and prophets of the Sidonian god; 
violently rooted the foreign Baal- worship out of the Northern 
Kingdom; and then ascended the throne as a legitimate 
sovereign. "And Yahweh said unto Jehu, Because thou 
hast executed well that which is right in mine eyes, and hast 
done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in 
my heart, thy sons of the fourth generation shall sit on the 
throne of Israel" (II Kings 10:30). 

An incident connected with this revolution is worthy of 
special notice: When Jehu was in the midst of his bloody 
work, he saw a man whose name was Jehonadab, the son of 
Rechab, coming to meet him. Jehu saluted this man, shook 
hands with him, and took him up into the chariot, saying, 
"Come with me, and see my zeal for Yahweh" (II Kings 
10:15-17). This incident seems to be an isolated occurrence, 



MISHPAT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM i8i 

with no essential relation to the events of the hour. The 
narrative gives no explicit reason for its inclusion in the Book 
of Kings; and many readers of the Bible have been puzzled by 
the story about Jehonadab the son of Rechab. Other parts 
of the Old Testament, however, make it possible for us to see 
this incident in its true perspective. Jehonadab (or Jonadab) 
was the founder of a primitive sect known as the Rechabites, 
named after his father. The sect was instituted about this 
time as a protest against the ideas and usages of settled, 
oriental civilization (Jer. 35:1-19). The most characteristic 
thing about these people was their avoidance of private prop- 
erty in land. They would do nothing which implied ownership 
in the soil. They planted no seed, because the sowing of seed 
would make it necessary to possess fields; and they drank 
no wine, because the raising of grapes would make it necessary 
to own vineyards. Perhaps it was the seizure of Naboth's 
vineyard by Ahab that suggested their avoidance of landed 
property. They may have reasoned that the private holding 
of land was at the root of all evil. By this token, if you have 
no land, the kings and nobles can take no land away from you. 
So the Rechabites lived in tents, and followed a semi-nomadic 
life in the open country, away from contact with city life. 
One of the biblical genealogies traces them back to the roving 
Kenite shepherds of the Arabian desert, with whom the 
Israelites came into covenant before the invasion of Canaan 
(I Chron. 2:55). Many names occur among them which 
include the syllable Yah; and it is certain that the Rechabites 
were ardent champions of Yahweh. They looked back long- 
ingly into earlier ages when the primitive, brotherhood mishpat 
of Yahweh reigned without dispute among the clans of the 
desert. The life of these primitive tent-dwellers was a protest 
against the settled civilization of the ancient world; and many 
who did not follow their way of life shared their ideals. "I 
will yet again make thee to dwell in tents," wrote one of the 



i82 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

prophets (Hos. 12:9). All these interesting considerations 
make it plain why Jehu, the would-be king, was anxious to have 
the leader of the Rechabites know about his "zeal" for 
Yahweh; and when Jehonadab struck hands with Jehu, and 
entered the chariot, his action signified the support of the 
Rechabites for the usurper. 

A corresponding revolution occurred a few years later in 
Judah, the Southern Kingdom. AthaKah, the queen, a 
daughter of Ahab, was killed; the priest of the Sidonian Baal 
met the same fate; and foreign Baal- worship was rooted out 
of Judah as it had been out of Israel. In place of AthaKah was 
installed the boy-king Jehoash (II Kings, chap. 11).^ 

The nature of the religious development of the Hebrew 
people comes before us with increasing distinctness and power 
as we study the Bible from the sociological standpoint. We 
see that in the second stage of the great struggle the govern- 
ment was revolutionized in both Israelite kingdoms. The 
political machinery of society was now committed officially 
to the principle that no foreign Baal- worship was to be tolerated 
in Israel. This was a very important step in the process by 
which the Bible religion was gradually set apart from the 
surrounding heathenism. 

Nevertheless, the struggle against the border-Baals was an 
ephemeral stage in the development. The local gods inherited 
from the Amorites were still standing; and if they were not 
eventually wiped out, the war against the deities of near-by 
nations would have been love's labor lost. For, so long as the 
native Baals of the Hebrew nation remained, the cult of Israel 
could not become a universal, exclusive principle; and the 
distinctive religion of the Bible could not be born. 

* Up to this time, the sequence of events in the Southern Kingdom with reference 
to the mishpat struggle is not so clear as it is in the Northern Kingdom. There is a 
vague notice of the putting-away of "idols" by King Asa many years before (I Kings 
15: 12, 13). This is not impossible; and it may be a sign of the greater conservatism 
of Judah in religious matters as compared with the north. The evolution did not 
necessarily move in a straight line. 



MISHPAT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 183 

The prophets Amos, Micah, and Isaiah are transition figures 
in the "mishpat" struggle.— Moving on from the time of Elijah, 
in the ninth century B.C., into the following, or eighth, century, 
our attention is at once arrested by the Judean, or southern, 
school of prophecy, consisting of Amos, Micah, and Isaiah." 
These men, as we have already seen, were preoccupied by the 
social struggle; and in common with all the other prophets, 
they laid heavy emphasis upon "morality" (p. 148, supra). 
But they did not come to terms with the vexed question 
of "other gods." Micah says nothing about the rivalry 
between Yahweh and other divinities. Amos refers vaguely 
to "the lies after which their fathers walked" (2:4), 
"the Sin of Samaria," "the god of Dan," and "the Way 
of Beer-sheba" (8:14). Isaiah speaks incidentally against 
"idols" (2:8, 18, 20; 17:8; 30:22; 31:7). But the eighth- 
century southern school of prophecy has nothing to say 
about the Baals. These men did not state the problem of 
their times in that distinctive and final way which at length 
came to characterize the Bible. Although Amos, Micah, and 
Isaiah were well versed in mishpat, they were feeling their way 
forward; and the Judean school of the eighth century may be 
viewed either as closing the second, or as opening the third, 
stage of the great struggle that convulsed Israel.^ 

The notable tardiness of southern prophecy in taking up 

■ By Isaiah we mean the author identified with the bulk of the first thirty-nine 
chapters of the Book of Isaiah. The remainder of Isaiah is post-exilic. 

' No little discussion has turned around the question of the originahty of Amos 
and the other literary prophets. Some of the earlier critics hailed these men as the 
creators of "ethical monotheism"; but this is a passing aberration. Amos and the 
other literary prophets worked in view of the foregoing history of the Hebrews. 
Yahweh had been a god of mishpat all along; and the conquests of David had im penal- 
ized the national deity as a "god of gods" (see chap xiv). Amos and his colleagues 
could not possibly have supposed that they were giving utterance to essentially new 
truths; and they do not, in fact, betray any consciousness of novelty in their message. 
This, however, does not prevent them from unconsciously adding to the religious 
thought of Israel by way of emphasis and inference. Cf. Davidson, Old Testament 
Theology (New York, 1904), p. 209; Wallis, Examination of Society, pp. 126, 162, 163. 



i84 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

the question of local Baal- worship is perhaps to be explained 
by the greater conservatism and slowness of Judah in reli- 
gious matters, as contrasted with Northern Israel. We have 
already noticed that the Amorite mixture was mostly in the 
north, while the foreign elements in the south were semi- 
nomadic (chap. XV, p. 136). We do not know how far the Baal- 
worship inherited from the Amorites was practiced in eighth- 
century Judah; and it may have been known there but little 
in the time of Amos, Micah, and Isaiah. Modern investi- 
gators are beginning to discriminate between various parts 
of the country and between different social classes in the 
same parts of the land. 

The Northern Kingdom of Israel was of high importance in 
the development of Bible religion. — "It was in northern Israel," 
writes Professor McCurdy, "where agriculture was more 
followed than in the southern kingdom, that Baal- worship 
was most insidious and virulent."^ Accordingly, Professor 
Addis, in his work on the religion of the Hebrews, points out 
that the semi-nomadic, or pastoral, class of society was "espe- 
cially prominent in Judah, where there is much less arable 
land than in the central districts of Palestine."^ Speaking 
of the north. Professor Marti says: "The fertile lowlands 
proved to be inhabited by mighty spirits in far greater num- 
bers than the barren uplands, where the nomads dwelt in 

tents There mighty spirits were lords of the land; 

they were the Baals of all these localities."-' In harmony 
with these writers. Professor Kautsch expresses himself as 
follows: "It may be that the complaint of Hosea applied in 
a much larger measure to the kingdom of Israel than to that 
of Judah. But, in any case, it furnishes a very notable testi- 
mony to the tenacity with which the belief in Baal as the god 

r 
^ Jewish Encyc, art. "Baal." 

^ Addis, Hebrew Religion (London, 1906), p. 82. 

3 Marti, Religion of the Old Testament (London, 1907), p. 91. 



MISHPAT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 185 

of the land and the dispenser of its fruits persisted amongst 
a portion of the people."^ 

The north was, indeed, of great importance in the develop- 
ment of Hebrew religion. The larger part of the Israelite 
clans established themselves here at the time of the original 
invasion. It was northern clans only that were present at 
the great Deborah battle (Judg. 5:13-23). Most of the 
judges were northern men. Here Samuel went from place 
to place on his judicial circuit. The Israelite monarchy itself 
was organized in this part of the country; and Saul, the first 
king, was a northerner. When the north separated from 
Judah, it retained the name of Israel. The prophets Elijah 
and Elisha started the struggle against the foreign Baals in 
the north. Here, in fact, was the great, pulsating center of 
Hebrew life until the kingdom of Ephraim was destroyed by 
the Assyrians. The north was less in touch with the desert 
than was Judah. It contained the bulk of the walled cities; 
it was furrowed by the paths of commerce; and thus it was 
more exposed than Judah to all the influences of civilization. 

In the third stage of the "mishpat" struggle, Yahweh at last 
came into conflict with local Baalism. — At the very time when 
the eighth-century Judean school of prophecy was engaged 
upon the social and religious problem, a prophetic star of the 
first magnitude arose in the Northern Kingdom. Hosea ben 
Beeri marks an advance upon Elijah, upon the JE documents, 
and upon the southern school of the eighth century. His 
ideas and language were suggested to his very sensitive 
mind by the prevailing Baal-worship in Ephraim, and also by 
a harrowing personal experience. A great sadness came into 
his home. He discovered that his wife was unfaithful. This 
heavy affliction gave to him the figure of Israel playing the 
" harlot "against Yahweh— committing " whoredom " by follow- 
ing the local Baals which came from the Amorite side of the 

' Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, ext. vol., p. 645; italics ours. 



i86 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

nation's ancestry. It was through Hosea that these very- 
striking terms came into the vocabulary of expressions relating 
to the national conflict. This prophet makes frequent use of 
the term "Baal" (Hos. 2:8, 13, 14-17; 11 :i, 2; 13:1). By 
suggesting the idea of a radical conflict between Yahwism and 
the native Baalism as an expression of the entire mishpat 
struggle, he makes an advance upon his predecessors and con- 
temporaries. A northern prophet, then, was the first old 
Testament leader to bring the local Baalism into the mish- 
pat struggle; and we have already seen that the struggle 
against foreign Baalism commenced in the north under Elijah 
in the century before Hosea. 

Yet Hosea did not find language that makes his idea per- 
fectly clear, so that one who runs may read. He talked about 
mishpat as Amos did; but, unlike Amos, he also talked against 
Baalism. His way of speaking does not, however, make the 
connection of the two matters obvious at first glance. The 
whole subject was "a new thing under the sun"; and the 
problem was too vast for one man to accomplish more than a 
fraction of the task of stating it in a clear way. Hosea did 
not put the prophetic thought into its final biblical form. 
His rehgious thought appears to have been formed through 
bitter personal experience, rather than by reflection upon the 
problem. He is emotional rather than rational; and his point 
of view is to be inferred from his book as a whole, rather than 
from any single passage in it. With Amos, he stands for the 
poor and speaks in the cause of mishpat. On the other hand, 
he is greatly concerned about the local Baals, who scarcely 
figure in Amos. But while Hosea is at the same time against 
injustice and against Baalism; and while he evidently sees a 
connection between the two; he nowhere finds the words 
and phrases that bring his thought out clearly. The ultimate 
development of the issue took place under the ministry of 
later prophets. 



MISHPAT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 187 

Soon after the time when Hosea threw the local Baals 
into the Hebrew struggle, the Northern Kingdom encoun- 
tered an overwhelming catastrophe. It was destroyed by the 
Assyrians, who carried away the Ephraimite upper classes 
into a captivity from which they never emerged. Hosea, 
therefore, was the last northern prophet. 

After the destruction of Ephraim, the center of interest in 
Hebrew development was transferred to Judah, the Southern 
Kingdom. — With the collapse of northern Israel, the entire 
Hebrew process contracted itself abruptly mto the limits of 
the Southern Kingdom; so that we must go on to a study 
of conditions in Judah in order to reach the climax of the 
prophetic movement. The struggle between parties, which had 
been going forward so long on the broader stage of Hebrew 
life as a whole, was now condensed within a small territory 
and the little Hebrew state passed through a number of highly 
interesting reactions. First, the "Amorite" influence was 
in the ascendent; then the "Israelite" influence would rule 
for a time; and so the evolutionary process went on, taking 
up elements from both parties in the great struggle. 

The "Amorite" reaction under King Manasseh. — After the 
Judean prophets Amos, Micah, and Isaiah had passed away, a 
great reaction against their teachings took place under Manas- 
seh. Their doctrines were officially repudiated by the govern- 
ment of Judah. Now, for the first time, the Book of Kings 
mentions the practice of Amorite Baalism in the Southern 
Kingdom. It is said that King Manasseh did "after the 
abominations of the nations whom Yahweh cast out before the 
children of Israel," and that "he reared up altars for Baal" 
(II Kmgs 21:2, 3), or "for the Baals" (II Chron. 2>y-?>)- 

The reaction was not a mere matter of the cultus, or the 
external forms and objects of worship; for in that age of the 
world, as we have repeatedly seen, religion, pohtics, and law 
were one and the same. BaaHsm was the symbol of the 



i88 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

Amorite standpoint. "Swearing by Baal" went along with 
the legal practices contrary to the earlier mishpat of Yahweh 
(Jer. 12:16). Accordingly, the narrative in Kings goes on to 
say that the prophets of Yahweh testified against the king, 
"because Manasseh, king of Judah, hath done these abomina- 
tions, and hath done wickedly above all that the Amorites 
did that were before him" (II Kings 21:10, 11). This pro- 
voked the government into bloody measures which may be 
compared to the persecution of Protestants at the time of the 
Reformation. We read that "Manasseh shed innocent blood 
very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another" 
(II Kings 21:16; 24:4). The memory of this fierce persecu- 
tion was vivid in the recollection of the people when the prophet 
Jeremiah lived; and he probably refers to the bloodshed under 
Manasseh when he says, "Your own sword hath devoured your 
prophets like a destroying lion" (Jer. 2 :3o). Truly, Jerusalem 
kiUed the prophets, and stoned them that were sent unto her 
(Luke 13:34).' 

This persecution, set on foot in the interests of Baalism, was 
an awful thing; but it was no more terrible than the bloodshed 
committed in the name of Yahweh at the time of the revolution 
of Jehu, when foreign Baalism was driven out of the land. Both 
parties in the mishpat struggle took the same violent methods.^ 

Manasseh was crowned at the irresponsible age of twelve; 

' Is it simply a coincidence that this king was the first and only Judean monarch 
to bear a distinctly northern name? "Manasseh" was a northern clan, a "son of 
Joseph," and implicated in the Baalism of Samaria (Gen. 48:1; Amos 6:6; Judg. 
6:15). 

^ We have seen that one of the -biblical writers held that Yahweh himself set the 
seal of divine approval on the wholesale assassination whereby the usurper Jehu 
gained the throne (p. 180, supra, and II Kings 10:30). In the same way, the Book of 
Deuteronomy, speaking in the name of Yahweh, enjoins the killing of aU Israelites that 
worship the Baals (Deut., chap. 13, and Exod. 22:20). It should be said in justice, 
however, that some of the prophets learned to take a higher view. Hosea, for instance, 
in the name of Yahweh, condemned the bloodshed under Jehu (Hos. 1:4). These 
interesting differences between the Bible writers themselves, in regard to such a vital 
matter as the taking of human life, are among the many proofs that there was no 
absolute authority, or law, which aU parties in the Hebrew nation acknowledged as 
divinely binding. 



MI SEP AT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 189 

and it is not likely that the Aniorite policy connected with 
his name was due to the king himself (II Kings 21:1). The 
events of Manasseh's reign show that the Baal party was in 
the ascendant for the time being. But we are now to see the 
opposite party once more in control. 

The "Israelite" reaction under King Josiah.— All social history 
tends to vibrate between the rule of different ' ' interests. ' ' The 
party that captures the legal machinery of a nation is able to 
dictate the official program of society, and thus to move the 
arm of the entire group. But a movement in one direction 
provokes a tendency toward the opposite extreme, just as a 
pendulum swings back and forth. So the Amorite policy identi- 
fied with Manasseh was at length reversed. An uprising of the 
peasantry in the country outside the capital put the boy Josiah 
on the throne of Judah at the early age of eight. Josiah " seems 
to have been made king by a popular movement in opposition 
to a strong party at court. "^ This revolution, like earlier 
ones, was an affair of blood; and it was carried through by 
"the people of the land," the am-ha 'ares (II Kings 21 : 23, 24). 

The struggle of parties was largely a contest between the 
wealthy class in the fortified cities and the peasantry of the 
highland villages. This is in strict harmony with the origin 
of the Hebrew nation itself at the point of coalescence between 
Amorite city-states and Israelite clans from the Arabian desert. 
Now, it should be emphasized that social conditions in the 
Southern Kingdom prolonged this reaction up to the very last. 
The mixture with the Amorites was not so thorough in Judah 
as it was in Ephraim, being mostly at such places as Jeru- 
salem, Libnah, Gibeon, Beth-shemesh, Lachish, and elsewhere 
on the borders (II Sam. 5:13; II Kings 23:31; II Sam. 21:2; 
Judg. 1:33; II Kings 14:11; cf. Micah 1:13).' Up in the 

' H. P. Smith, Old Testament History (New York, 1903), p. 260. 

=" Libnah actually revolted from Judah in the reign of Joram (II Kings 8:22). 
Lachish must have been largely foreign throughout the entire history of Israel. Cf. 
G. A. Smith, Historical Geography, p. 234. 



I90 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

wilder hill-country of Judah, the foreign admixture was not 
Amorite but semi-nomadic, being more in accord with the 
original customs and ideas of the Israelite clans (cf. p. 136, 
supra). The "civilization" of Judah was, indeed, more back- 
ward than that of Ephraim; and the people and environment 
were more primitive. Doubtless the peasantry of the south got 
some temporary measure of relief through the movement that 
put Josiah on the throne; but in view of the testimony of 
Jeremiah and Zephaniah who prophesied in the reign of this 
king, and who took the same tone as Amos, it is clear that the 
accession of the eight-year-old prince brought no permanent 
benefit for the poorer classes. 

Another "Amorite" revolution takes place. — Ten years after 
the "people of the land" had put their candidate on the 
southern throne, the powerful arm of the government in Jeru- 
salem was captured by a force that worked it in the opposite 
direction. The entire machinery of Hebrew religion was taken 
suddenly out of the hands of the country people, and centralized 
in the capital city. It is clear from what followed that the 
peasantry were taken by surprise. The highlanders of Judah 
had conducted the worship of Yahweh at little village churches, 
or bamoth, ever since the time of the Israelite conquest. For 
instance, Absalom paid a vow to Yahweh at the church in 
Hebron, a village in the highest part of the southern uplands 
(II Sam. 15 : 7-12). It was near Hebron, the Israelites piously 
believed, that the patriarch Abraham built an altar to Yahweh 
(Gen. 13:18); and here, indeed, according to ancient tradition, 
the ground had been sanctified by a theophany in which the 
god of Israel had appeared to Abraham and told him about the 
wickedness of city life (Gen., chap. 18). The entire clan to 
which David's family belonged had an annual reunion during 
which they sacrificed to Yahweh at the shrine of Beth-lehem 
(I Sam. 20:6, 28). Here Samuel came to worship at the time 
he selected the son of Jesse as the future king of Israel (I Sam. 



MISHPAT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 191 

chap. 16). Around these village altars had gathered the devo- 
tion and faith of the Hebrew people for hundreds of years; 
but now, in the eighteenth year of the boy-king Josiah, the 
local sanctuaries were suddenly abolished by royal decree! 

There has been a steady progress among professional 
scholars toward a clearer understanding of this important 
epoch in Hebrew history. The startling revolution which 
took place in the reign of Josiah has been the subject of an 
immense amount of discussion in modern times. On the face 
of the narrative in Kings, the reformation of the cultus was 
"caused" by the mere accidental discovery of a little roll, or 
book, which was brought from the Temple in Jerusalem, by a 
priest, and put suddenly before the young king (II Kings 
22 : 8 ff.). According to the account, this book was promptly 
received as the word of Yahweh by everybody, from the king 
down. The contents of the book are unknown to us, except 
through inference ; but the revolution in the forms of worship, 
which occurred at this time, corresponds in many ways to our 
present Book of Deuteronomy, wherein the centralization of 
the cultus at one place is commanded (Deut. 12:10-14); and 
it is commonly assumed that the roll of writing brought to the 
king by the priest Hilkiah was the "first edition" of Deuteron- 
omy. It cannot be successfully disputed that such a writing 
became public in the reign of Josiah, and that a change in the 
forms of worship took place in some sort of relation to it. 
Our main fault lies in the tendency to view this particular 
crisis out of connection with the rest of Hebrew history. 
Professor James Orr, for instance, in his work on the religion 
of the Bible, says that "investigation naturally begins with the 
narrative of the finding of the ' book of the law' in the eighteenth 
year of the reign of Josiah."' It is indeed natural for one 

' Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament (New York, 1906), p. 256. (Italics ours.) 
We have previously considered the "Deuteronomic" revolution from our present 
standpoint in a paper entitled "Professor Orr and Higher Criticism," published in 
the American Journal of Theology, April, 1908, and also in a paper in the American 
Journal of Sociology, May, 1907. 



192 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

who has the training and presuppositions of Professor Orr to 
look at such a matter out of relation to the general movement 
of Hebrew history. He lightly accepts the statement that the 
newly discovered book was received as authoritative by "all 
the people" (II Kings, 23 :iQ.), and bases a heavy argument 
on the exact literality of the entire narrative. 

But the revolution which occurred in the eighteenth year of 
Josiah takes its place, along with other historical items, as one 
of the steps in a process of development. The leading modern 
scholars, in the course of their investigation of the Deutero- 
nomic problem, have already foreshadowed the view that the 
startling change in the cultus under Josiah was really a species 
of counter-reiornia,tion. All parties to the discussion assume 
at least a general correspondence between (i) the book found 
by the priest Hilkiah, (2) the Book of Deuteronomy, and 
(3) the cultus changes described in II Kings, chap. 23. Reason- 
ing on the ground of this general assumption, Cornill justly 
observes that "Deuteronomy represents a compromise and 
alliance between prophecy and priesthood, which resulted, 
however, in benefiting the latter only.^'^ Marti says that it 
was not the prophetic religion, but the priestly cultus that 
profited by the reformation.^ Kautsch declares that the 
reform "remained for the mass of the people simply a royal 
decree which showed its effects in a variety of external matters, 
but, so far as inward disposition was concerned, left every- 
thing as before."^ Loisy writes: "The nahis [prophets] who 
helped the reformation were those rather who .... beheved 
in the inviolability of Zion. They were the nationalist and 
optimistic prophets, whom Jeremiah treated as false prophets, 

' Cornill, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York, 1907), p. 62. (Italics ours.) 

2 Marti, Religion of the Old Testament (London, 1907), p. 189. 

3 Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, ext. vol., p. 700. (Italics ours.) Even Driver, 
with his characteristic reserve, says that the author of Deuteronomy has greater 
sympathy with priestly institutions than the prophets generally {Commentary on 
Deuteronomy [New York, 1906], p. xxx). 



MI SEP AT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 193 

although they might be as sincere as himself in their con- 
victions."* 

These observations help us to grasp the essential meaning 
of the revolution which took place in the reign of Josiah. As 
a rule, the great insurgent prophets had not been friendly to 
the priesthood and the mere external forms of religion. The 
dispute at Bethel, between the prophet Amos and the priest 
Amaziah typifies the situation (Amos 7:10-17). The priests 
were appointed by the kings; and they were consequently 
the creatures of the wealthy official classes. The centraliza- 
tion of worship at Jerusalem was a victory for the priests, the 
scribes, and the city party in general. It foreshadowed the 
rise of Judaism. The great reformation of Josiah indeed' 
brought the Hebrew cultus into a form something like that 
which we find in the New Testament period, when the Jews 
held that in Jerusalem was the place where men ought to 
worship (John 4:20, etc.). In the time of Jesus, the temple 
at Jerusalem was popularly regarded as the one legitimate 
place of sacrifice for Israel; and the great mass of the people 
were under the rule of aristocratic priests and scribes. The 
aristocratic ideal of the "Amorite counter-reformation" is 
explicitly declared in a late, Deuteronomic passage inserted 
in the Book of Samuel: "And I will raise me up a faithful 

priest And it shall come to pass that every one that 

is left in thine house shall come and bow down to him for a piece 
of silver and a loaf of bread, and shall say. Put me, I pray thee, 
into one of the priest's offices, that I may eat a morsel of 
bread" (I Sam. 2:35, 36). Such was the exalted place which 
the priesthood eventually took as a result of the centraliza- 
tion of the cultus at the capital.^ The boy-monarch, without 
realizing the nature of the forces that moved him, seems to 

' Loisy, The Religion of Israel (New York, 1910), p. 188. 

= Of course, the insignificant priests of the village altars were not benefited by 
this revolution (II Kings 23:9). 



194 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

have fallen into the hands of the "Amorite" party; and the 
pendulum had completed another swing. 

History was now pressing hard upon the Hebrew people. 
The Northern Kingdom was already blotted out of existence — 
a ghostly memory; and the Southern Kingdom was becoming 
more and more involved with the great world-powers of oriental 
civilization. About fifteen years after the reform of the cul- 
tus, Josiah was killed in a battle with the Egyptians at Megiddo 
(II Kings 23:29). 

"Israelite" reaction again. — Aroused once more to common 
action, the "people of the land" asserted themselves again. 
Passing over the "crown prince," Eliakim, the eldest son of 
Josiah, the people chose as king another son, Shallum, who 
assumed the crown under the name Jehoahaz (II Kings 23 :3o; 
Jer. 22:11; I Chron. 3:15). The popular triumph was very 
brief. The new king had reigned only twelve weeks when the 
pendulum swung violently back. 

The "Amorites" return to power, upheld first by the Egyptians 
and then by the Babylonians. — The popular sovereignty implied 
in passing over the crown prince Eliakim could not be tolerated 
by the Egyptian emperor. So he deposed the people's choice, 
and put the crown prince on the throne, changing his name 
from Eliakim to Jehoiakim. A heavy tax was laid on the 
"people of the land," who were awed into submission (II 
Kings 23:33-35). Judah had noAV become the footbaU of 
the world-powers. In a few years the disposition of inter- 
national politics underwent a great change. The Egyptians 
were defeated by the Babylonians; and King Jehoiakim, the 
creature of the Egyptian emperor, transferred his allegiance to 
Nebuchadrezzar, the emperor of Babylon. It was to be 
expected that Jehoiakim, ruling by grace of these foreign 
masters, would be a man of no popular sympathy. Such a 
monarch, being supported by the most ancient commercial 
civilizations of the eastern world, naturally took the civUized, 



MISHPAT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 195 

'' Amorite" standpoint rather than the more primitive Israehte 
point of view; and it is not surprising to find that the insurgent 
prophet Jeremiah preached fiercely against him as an oppressor 
(Jer. 22:13-19). 

We have gone into historical details rather freely for the 
sole purpose of clearing up the political and geographical 
background of the mishpat struggle in its final and most 
important stage; and we now turn once more away from 
external events to study the evolution of ideas. 

Jeremiah and other Judean writers, having local Baalism 
chiefly in view, at last identified the worship of "other gods" with 
opposition to the "mishpat" of Yahweh. — After Hosea, who raised 
the issue of local Baalism without stating it in compact and 
logical form, the next great figure to come into notice was 
the prophet Jeremiah. This interesting champion of Yahweh 
came from the little country village of Anathoth, "in the land 
of Benjamin," several miles north of Jerusalem (Jer. 1:1; 
32:8). Like Amos and other insurgent prophets, Jeremiah 
represented the standpoint of the peasantry. The land of 
Benjamin lay a little to the north of Judah. On its western 
border was the once Amorite city of Gibeon; while the once 
Amorite Jerusalem stood on the southern border. Jeremiah's 
home influences were such as to give him a close insight 
into the needs of the 'peasantry; and he was not so remote 
as Amos from the cehtral currents of "civilization." After 
Jeremiah began to preach, he spent a great deal of time in 
Jerusalem itself. Here were most of the wealthy officials 
whom he wanted to influence; and hither came crowds of 
people out of the villages and cities of Judah on matters of 
business, politics, and law. 

Jeremiah was at once the heir of Amos, Micah, and Isaiah, 
in the south, and of Elijah and Hosea, m the north. Whfle 
the substance of his message is common to all the prophets, 
he has an individuality of his own. His remarkable emphasis 



196 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

upon the Baals was taken from Hosea; but Hosea handled 
the native Amorite element in the Hebrew cult like an ama- 
teur when compared with his follower in the south. Jere- 
miah is the first of the Judean prophets to work the local 
Hebrew Baal-worship over into the terms of the mishpat 
struggle. This outcome was in harmony with the logic of 
the entire conflict, from the beginning of the struggle in the 
revolts of the peasantry against David and Solomon. The 
Baals were identified by immemorial usage with the stand- 
point of oriental civilization; they were the divine symbols 
and representatives of settled commercial and agricultural 
society. But from the time when the Israelite invasion rolled 
in from the desert, a large part of the nation identified Yahweh 
with the law and morals of a more primitive social state. 
The conflict of standpoints worked out all through Hebrew 
life. The half -nomadic highlanders in Judah were even more 
backward than the northern peasantry; and as a result, the 
distinction between social classes was more vivid and the 
conflict of standpoints more glaring in the Southern Kingdom 
than an3rwhere else in Israel. The religion of the Hebrews 
reached its final development in the south. Judean prophetic 
writers formulated the Bible problem in those peculiar com- 
binations of words and phrases that have moved the mind of 
subsequent generations all over the world. Verfly, it was by 
no accident that instruction went forth from Zion, and the 
word of the Lord from Jerusalem (Isa. 2:3; Mic. 4:2).^ 

Jeremiah carried the Hosean figure of Baalism to its logical 
issue as a definite, explicit symbol of opposition to the mish- 
pat of Yahweh. It was through Jeremiah and the Deutero- 
nomic school of writers that the social struggle at last found 
expression in terms of rivalry between the local cults of the 
Hebrews themselves. When Jeremiah denounces the wor- 

' Concerning the eighth and seventh centuries, Professor Guthe writes: "The 
old antitheses remained; but they had become subtler and more profoundly appre- 
hended." — Encyc. Biblica, col. 3867. (Italics ours.) 



MI SEP AT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 



197 



ship of "other gods," it is primarily the local Baals that he 
has in mind as dreadful examples ( Jer. 2:23; 7:9; 9:14; 11:13 
cf. 3:24; 11:17; 12:16; 19:5; 23:13; 32:35). Over and over 
again, he condemns the Baal-worship going on around him. 
In order to make as clear as possible the function which 
the Amorite part of the Hebrew cultus played in the devel- 
opment of Bible religion, a simile may be employed here: 
When a lever is used for prying an object loose, it has 
to be supported upon something. The means of support is 
called a "fulcrum." Now, the native Baal-principle in the 
early religion of Israel was the "fulcrum" used in detaching 
the Hebrews from the worship of "other gods." The con- 
flict between the moral standpoints inherited from the Israel- 
ites and Amorites was at last viewed as a rivalry between 
Yahweh and Baal. The moral struggle was figured as a cult 
war. Thus we come back to the origin of the Hebrew people 
at the point of coalescence between Amorite Baal- worshipers 
and Israelite worshipers of Yahweh. 

Holding these considerations in mind, let us glance at the 
writings of Jeremiah as they bear on this point. Ha\dng the 
local Baal-w^orship chiefly in view, the last great prophet 
before the Babylonian exile makes "other gods" the definite, 
explicit symbols of all that the insurgent prophets abhor. 
This evil people, who refuse to hear the words of Yahweh, 
are gone after other gods (13 : 10). They have forsaken Yah- 
weh — and walked after other gods: forsaken Yahweh — and 
have not kept his law (16:11). Walking after other gods 
becomes the symbol, or figure, for breaking the law of Yah- 
weh as declared for centuries by his prophets. Yahweh -wall 
utter his mishpat against the people in regard to all their 
wickedness, in that they have forsaken him and burned incense 
to other gods (i : 16). Thus, the native Hebrew Baal-worship, 
representing the Amorite ancestry of the people, serves as the 
foil against which prophecy throws its heaviest force in the 



igS SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

third stage of the mishpat struggle. The great conflict of 
legal and moral ideas was at last put into its characteristic 
religious terms. 

The Deuteronomic parts of the Old Testament began to take 
form at this time. — The method thus painfully discovered by the 
religious thinkers of Israel spread itself out over Hebrew 
literature as the Old Testament came into being. The Book of 
Deuteronomy is a Judean product, issuing from the times 
of Jeremiah, but with many later additions. As modern 
critical study has proved, a primitive Deuteronomic work, 
in the form of the "Hilkiah-book," was the first Old Testa- 
ment writing to be officially adopted as "canonical Scripture." 
We have already seen that the leading feature of the Hilkiah- 
book was apparently the centralization of the cultus in the 
hands of the city party. Whatever the nature and extent of 
this "counter-revolution" may have been, it left the local 
Baal-worship standing, as the testimony of Jeremiah and 
Zephaniah shows; and the present expanded Book of Deu- 
teronomy ranges itself alongside of Jeremiah in treating the 
moral struggle as a contest between the native divinities, 
regarded as two distinct principles. It is the Baal-worship 
derived from the Amorites that is chiefly referred to by 
Deuteronomy (7:1-5, 25; 12:2-4; 12:30; 20:16-18; 31:16). 
The worship of the Baals is equated, or identified, with every- 
thing that the prophets abhor. Thus the people shall not 
turn aside from any of the words of Yahweh to go after "other 
gods" (Deut. 28:14). In another passage, of remarkable 
force, walking after other gods is declared to be the precise 
opposite of observing the commandments, statutes, and 
ordinances (mishpatim) of Yahweh (30:16, 17). It is inter- 
esting to notice that, in these general passages, mishpat 
means the same as hukkoth (statutes), toroth (instructions, or 
laws), miswoth (commands), and eduth (testimonies).^ 

' Cf. I Sam. 30:25, where David made a certain rule "a hok and a mishpat for 
Israel." 



MISHPAT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 



199 



The Deuteronomic writers now turned back to the old 
records and stories of past history, and, as they themselves 
declare, worked a part of this ancient material up into our 
present books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings (cf. chap, iv, 
" The Making of the Old Testament") . We have so frequently 
spoken of the Deuteronomic editors of Judges, Samuel, and 
Kings that this phase of the subject will present no difficulty. 
The method which is now before us works automatically 
forward in the development of the Bible. The Deuteronomists 
took pleasure in reading and studying the old narratives of 
the Judges period. In these fascinating stories about the 
first epoch of the Israelite invasion and settlement of Canaan, 
the Israelites and Amorites were as yet apart from each other; 
so that the deities of these two peoples (Yahweh and the 
Baals) were distinct, sharply contrasted gods. The Deutero- 
nomic school made very impressive use of these old narratives, 
and worked them up into a remarkable production, the 
''Book of Judges" (cf. chap, xi, supra). The books of Samuel 
and Kings are likewise great monuments of Deuteronomic 
industry. We read in Kings that if the people do not observe 
the mishpat, etc., of Yahweh, but shall go and serve "other 
gods," then Israel shall be cut off and cast aside (I Kings 
9 : 4, 6, 7) . The case here stands exactly as it does in Jeremiah 
and in Deuteronomy. Worship of other gods is the con- 
venient symbol, or figure, for breaking the mishpat of Yahweh. 
The entire situation is finally summed up, from the Deutero- 
nomic standpoint, in the concluding part of Kings as follows : 
The children of Israel feared "other gods"; that is, they 
walked in the statutes (hukkoth) of the nations whom Yahweh 
cast out before Israel (the Amorites). Therefore Judah and 
Israel were also cast out, and carried away into exile (II Kings 
17:7, 8, 19, 20, 35, 37). 

After the Amorite Baal-worship had been seized upon 
for central emphasis, and carried over into the midst of the 



200 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

struggle, the way was open for a broader and more philosophi- 
cal view of the entire situation. Opposition to the mishpat of 
Yahweh could now be spoken of either as following the gods 
of the Amorites, or as walking in the mishpat of the Amorites, 
precisely as in the last citation from Kings. It now began to 
be seen that the Hebrew struggle was a reaction between two 
different ideas of mishpat, growing out of the double ancestry 
of the Hebrew nation. This way of putting the case would 
have been impossible to the prophets of the eighth-century 
Judean school. To Amos, the struggle was not between two 
different ideas of what mishpat was. He would not so dignify 
the claims of his opponents. To the simple shepherd from 
southern Judah, the conflict was between the one, genuine 
mishpat of Yahweh, on the one side, and "wormwood," on the 
other side (Amos 5:7; 6:12). According to Micah, the official 
classes were ignorant of mishpat (3:1-2). And Isaiah, 
in words like those of Amos, declared that the rulers turned 
sweetness into bitterness, light into darkness (5:20). The 
earlier prophets could not express themselves more clearly 
than this; and so they were not conclusive. They were 
fighters dealing with a situation whose merits and possibilities 
they could not wholly see. But by the time of Jeremiah 
and the Deuteronomists, the intellectual outlook of the 
Hebrew mind was clearer; and the nature of Hebrew history 
began to be a little better understood. Of course, the Bible 
nowhere presents a modern scientific statement of the case; 
but the later prophets began to be conscious, as the earlier 
ones were not, that the force dragging the nation down to 
ruin was Amorite law and morals persisting among the people.^ 
Jeremiah and the Deuteronomists had before their eyes the 

^ This explains why the earlier prophets (such as Amos, for instance) never say, 
"Do not do as the Amorites do." For if the earlier prophets thought about the race 
matter at all, they pictured the Amorites as destroyed root and branch (cf. Amos 
2:9 f.). They did not realize that the Amorite blood and customs continued to exist 
under the name of Israel. This paradox complicates the situation for ancient and 
modern thinkers alike. 



MISHPAT STRUGGLE TAKES FINAL FORM 201 

spectacle of aliens who had been brought mto the territory 
of Northern Israel from other parts of the Semitic world, whose 
mishpat (like that of the Amorites) was contrary to the ancient 
usages of the Yahweh cult (II Kings 17 : 24-41). History was 
always doing sometjiing to open the eyes of the prophets; 
and this object-lesson could not fail to be impressive and 
enlightening.' 

The Deuteronomic attitude toward the Amorites had a 
marked influence on the prophet Ezekiel, who wrote in Baby- 
lonia during the Captivity: "Cause Jerusalem to know her 
abominations." "Thine origin and thy nativity is of the 
land of the Canaanite. The Amorite was thy father" 
(16:2-3, 45). Israel did not do after the mishpat of Yahweh, 
but after that of the nations round about (11:12); and because 
they did not execute the mishpat of Yahweh, he gave the people 
mishpat wherein they could not live (20:24, 25). Continuing 
our quest for the Deuteronomic idea, we turn from Ezekiel 
to the "Code of Holiness" which composes the central part 
of the Book of Leviticus (chaps. 17-26). Here we find the 
same tone: Israel shall not do after the doings of the land 
of Canaan. They shall not walk in the statutes (hukkoth) of 
the former inhabitants. But— they shall do the mishpat of 
Yahweh (Lev. 18:3-5).' Finally, the Deuteronomic writers 
go far back into the nomadic era, and picture Yahweh telling 

' Exception may be taken to this example on the ground that mishpat in this 
passage refers only to ritual usages. But the notice explicitly states that the imported 
aliens continued to worship other gods along with Yahweh (vss. 29, 30), and that they 
did not keep the hukkim (mascuUne plural of hok, Usually hukkoth), the mishpatim, the 
torah, and the miswah of Yahweh (vs. 37). Even on the surface, then, this case 
embodies vastly more than a mere contrast in ritual usages; and we should be entitled 
to infer as much in the very nature of the situation. 

*The "abominations" of the Amorites cannot be viewed as restricted to sexual 
impurity by the bibHcal writers, although this form of sin is included with the rest, as 
one which develops with excessive wealth. The Book of Leviticus itself, which puts 
the mishpat of Yahweh over against that of the Amorites in such a broad and general 
way, is careful to show that the law of Yahweh includes all that the pre-exilic prophets 
had in view (Lev. 19:13-15; 25:35-41)- In order to avoid overloading the text, we 
have omitted the sex problem from the argument. 



202 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

the patriarch Abraham that his posterity shall inherit the land 
of Canaan when the iniquity of the Amorite is full (Gen. 15 : i6). 
In due time, Yahweh redeems his promise; and the Amorites 
are said to have been utterly swept away (Josh. 10:40-42; 
11:16-19, 23; 21:43, 44)- Thus the conception at length 
emerged into view that the struggle which convulsed the 
Hebrew nation throughout its entire history was a dramatic 
warfare conducted by Yahweh himself against the law and 
morals identified with the former inhabitants of Canaan. 

The editorial point of departure in the making of the Old 
Testament is condemnation of the Hebrews for walking after "the 
iniquity of the Amorite." — In our study of the making of the 
Old Testament, we learned in the first place, that the Hebrew 
Bible was arranged by writers and editors who were not con- 
temporary with the events described, and who made use of 
many earlier documents which they inherited from their fore- 
fathers. In the second place, we saw that their object, or 
purpose, in all this literary activity was a moral one. The 
writers of the Bible were sitting in judgment on history, and 
uttering moral verdicts on the past. We are now prepared to 
see that the men who gave us the Old Testament did not state 
their moral views primarily in a general, or abstract, way. 
Their ideas were formed on the basis of the actual experience 
through which the Hebrews had slowly passed in the long course 
of their social-religious development. The editorial point of 
departure in the making of Scripture is condemnation of the 
Hebrews for adopting Amorite law and morals.^ 

^ The priestly documents, which are still later than the Deuteronomic parts of the 
Old Testament, are preoccupied with matters of ritual and cognate questions. Hence 
they do not discuss the Amorites, who are sufhciently treated of by their predecessors. 
Yet the Deuteronomic attitude toward the former inhabitants (like the law of the 
central sanctuary) is implied in the priestly docmnents as part of the foundation upon 
which they build. The priestly ritual is ordained for the protection and conservation 
of the prophetic work. 



CHAPTER XX 

RELIGIOUS EFFECT OF THE EXILE 

The Babylonian Exile completed the destruction of Hebrew 
nationality.— The ruin of Jerusalem was the climax of He- 
brew misfortune. The prostration of the Southern Kingdom 
brought into awful relief the fact of Hebrew annihilation; for 
the kingdom of Ephraim had been already swept away. The 
maelstrom of world-history had swallowed the north Israelites; 
and now, far away in Babylonia, the exiles from Judah beheld 
with amazement the manners and customs of a strange land. 
The modern reader can best picture to himself the effect of 
these things upon the Hebrew mind by putting himself in the 
place of the exiles, and imagining his own feelings if his native 
country were called upon to go through a similar experience. 
"By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yea, we wept 
when we remembered Zion. Upon the willows in the midst 
thereof we hanged up our harps. For there they that led us 

captive required of us words of song How shall we 

sing Yahweh's song in a strange land ?" (Ps. 137 : 1-4). This 
plaintive wail has come down to us through the ages from the 
distant exilic time; and while it is quite familiar, we do not 
often pause to think of the circumstances that inspired it and 
the heart throbs that are in it. The Captivity was the utter 
prostration of Israel. "We are clean cut off. Our transgres- 
sions and our sins are upon us; and we pine away in them. 
How then can we live ? Our bones are dried up; and our hope 
is lost" (Ezek. 33:10; 37:11). No social organization re- 
mained in which Hebrew life and thought could express 
itself. The people were humbled in the dust. The walls 
of Jerusalem were broken down. The city was destroyed. 
The Temple of Yahweh stood in ruins. "Zion is become a 

203 



204 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

wilderness, Jerusalem a desolation!" exclaimed a writer in the 
Exile. "Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers 
praised thee, is burned with fire; and all our pleasant places 
are laid waste" (Isa. 64:10-11)/ 

The Exile was an important factor in the conversion of the 
Hebrews from poljrtheism to monotheism. — We can hardly 
overestimate the importance of the Captivity in the develop- 
ment of Bible religion. The destruction of Hebrew nationahty 
was a vindication of the great insurgent prophets who had 
agonized and suffered in the long centuries before the Exile. 
Baal- worship had been at length identified with all that the 
great prophets abhorred; and as the captives marched across 
the desert, the words of Jeremiah rang ever more loudly in 
their ears: "Baalism brings evil to Israel!" In the light of 
this thought the Hebrews learned to take the calamity of 
the Exile as a vindication of the prophets. And the same 
events that justified one school of prophecy discredited the 
opposing school. "Where now are your prophets that prophe- 
sied unto you, saying. The king of Babylon shall not come 
against you, nor against this land?" (Jer. 37:19). The 
prophets who taught the people to swear by the name of 
Baal, and who said, "Peace, peace; no evil shall come upon 
us" — these men were forever silenced by the majestic march 
of history. "Thy prophets have seen for thee false and 
foolish visions; and they have not uncovered thine iniquity 
to bring back thy captivity, but have seen for thee false 
oracles and causes of banishment" (Lam. 2:14). Thus the 
"regular" prophets came to be branded as "false," while 
Amos and his class rose to the dignity of "true" prophets. 
Through these heart-shattering experiences, the Baals and 
all other gods beside Yahweh were at last thrown aside; and 
the exclusive worship of the one moraUy "true" God gained 
its victorious ascendency over the Hebrew mind. 

' This passage comes from the late exiHc, or post-exilic, part of the Book of 
Isaiah (chaps. 40-66). 



RELIGIOUS EFFECT OF THE EXILE 205 

The exiles were not carried away all at once, but in two 
bands, and at two different times about ten years apart. 
When the first band was deported, the city of Jerusalem 
was left as yet untouched, under a native king, Zedekiah, 
who reigned by appointment of the Babylonians (II Kings, 
chap. 24). In this first band of captives there was a man who 
was destined to become famous, the prophet Ezekiel. When 
Ezekiel began to prophesy to the captives in Babylonia, the 
city of Jerusalem was yet standing; and the last great calamity 
had not fallen on the home land. 

The earlier part of the Book of Ezekiel has much to say 
about the wickedness and the impending destruction of 
Jerusalem. This remarkable prophet of the Captivity con- 
demns the same sins against which the insurgent prophets 
declaimed — injustice and polytheism (Ezek. 22 : i-io; 8 : 1-17.) 
The capital must soon fall. The God of righteousness and 
purity can abide no longer in the corrupt city of Jerusalem. 
This thought is emphasized with startling effect in Ezekiel's 
awful vision of Yahweh in a terrible fiery chariot (Ezek. i : 4 ff.). 
The "Glory of Yahweh" is outraged by the abominations 
committed in its presence at the Temple of Jerusalem. The 
climax comes when the dreadful chariot rises grandly from the 
city, emitting thunders and lightnings, and forsakes the Holy 
Land! Ezekiel's peculiar vision enforced the moral lesson of 
Israel's history (Ezek. 9:3; 10:4-19; 11 : 22-24). Other proph- 
ets opposed him; but he warned the people against them. 
At last the Babylonian king laid siege to Jerusalem and ruined 
the city. Ezekiel was vindicated and the other prophets were 
silenced (II Kings, chap. 25; Ezek., chap. 13; cf. 24:1). 

The Captivity gave the religion of the Hebrews a world- 
perspective.— The prophets before the Exile were so much taken 
up with questions close at hand that they did not spend much 
time upon the broader problem of Hebrew history as a whole. 
The question as to the meaning of Israel's experience, and the 



2o6 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

place of the nation in the history of the world at large, was 
hardly raised before the Exile. Jeremiah hinted that Jerusalem 
should be the gathering-place of the nations, and that the 
peoples of the earth should bless themselves in Yahweh (Jer. 
3:17; 4:2)/ The nations were moved about by the will of 
Yahweh (Amos 9:7). He brought the Assyrians against 
Ephraim as the instruments of divine retribution (Isa. 8:7-8). 
Yet the earlier prophets were so close to Hebrew history that 
they did not get a wide outlook upon it; and so they did not 
clearly state a philosophy of it. 

But the Exile made it possible to look at Hebrew history on 
a broader background. With the Captivity there came a 
wider perspective. New vistas of spiritual insight now opened 
before the eyes of the prophets. It slowly became clear that 
the national experience had a universal meaning. So Ezekiel 
writes: "Not for your sake do I work, saith the lord Yahweh. 
.... Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house 
of Israel! I work not for your sake, O house of Israel, but for 
my holy name'' (Ezek. 36:22, 32). Ezekiel's doctrine of the 
name stands in logical connection with his fiery celestial 
chariot. The God of Glory, who rides in the center of the 
awful vision that haunts the prophet, is working forward 
through the complex process of world-history with a moral 
purpose. 

The national god of Israel at length became the Redeemer 
of Mankind. — The idea of God, steadily developing in response 
to the pressure of the social problem, was becoming more and 
more fit to stand at the center of a world-religion. The Exile 
enlarged the spiritual horizon of the Hebrews, and suggested 
new ideas to the finer and more thoughtful minds among them. 
The national downfall confirmed the prophets in the habit of 
reading the events of history in the light of a divine purpose. 

^ A similar prediction is common to the books of Micah and Isaiah (Mic. 4:1-3; 
Isa. 2 : 2-4) ; but this may be post-exilic. 



RELIGIOUS EFFECT OF THE EXILE 207 

The relation of Yahweh to Israel was now made subordinate, 
or incidental, to the larger salvation of the world. 

Behold my Servant, whom I sustain— my Chosen, in whom my soul 
delighteth. I have put my spirit upon him. He shall bring forth 

mishpat to the nations A cracked reed he shall not break, and 

the dimly burning wick he shall not extinguish. He shall faithfully 
bring forth mishpat. He shall not fail nor be discouraged till he have 
set mishpat in the earth; and the isles shall wait for his law (Isa. 42 : 1-4). 

The mighty outlines of the gospel of redemption thus came 
slowly but surely into view. Yahweh will make his holy name 
known throughout all the earth, in order that mankind shall be 
redeemed from sin, and released from the shackles of injustice. 
Israel was the instrument through which this purpose was to 
be accomplished. Only thus, by deep and bitter experience, 
was the human mind prepared to entertain the idea of God as 
a moral person whose field of work is all history.^ 

The conquest of Babylonia by the Persians awoke the prophecy 
of return from Captivity. — The interpretation of history in the 
light of an overshadowing divine plan is illustrated by the 
remarkable prophecy of Israel's release from Exile. A great 
army from the northeast, led by Cyrus, king of Persia, was 
descending upon Babylon; and as the mighty host rolled 
onward, a message of cheer was given to the captives: "I have 
raised up one from the north; and he is come — from the rising 
of the sun one that calleth on my name. And he shall come 
upon rulers as upon mortar, and as the potter treadeth clay. 
Cyrus [the king of Persia] is my shepherd, and shall perform 
all my pleasure, even saying of Jerusalem, She shall be built; 
and of the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid" (Isa. 41:25; 
44:28). At last, after many years, the Captivity is to be 
broken; and the exiles may return. "Comfort ye, com- 
fort ye my people saith your God. Speak to the heart of 

' " In the Exile, Israel's religion had attained its maturity. Virtually no more 
growth can be observed in it."— Davidson, Theology of the Old Testament (New York, 
1904), p. 137. 



2o8 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

Jerusalem, and cry unto her that her time of service is accom- 
phshed, that her iniquity is pardoned, that she hath received 
of Yahweh's hand double for all her sins" (Isa. 40:1-2; cf. 
Jer. 16:18). At length Israel is to return across the wilderness 
to the home land. The prophet speaks in a figurative way 
about the journey through the desert: ' 'The voice of one that 
crieth, Prepare ye in the wilderness the way of Yahweh! 
Make level in the desert a highway for our God ! Every valley 
shaU be filled up; and every mountain and hill be made low; 
and the uneven shall be made level, and the rough places 
plain" (Isa. 40:3-4).^ 

The conception of Yahweh as Redeemer took form around the 
idea of the "goel." — While the biblical idea of God grew up on 
the lines of the social process through which the Hebrew 
nation passed, the God-idea took on its final form around one 
of the most beautiful figures in Hebrew hfe. The goel, -■^B , 
was a man who (among other offices) "redeemed," or "bought 
free," a needy relative who had been sold into slavery through 
debt (Levi. 25:48, 49). The goel-idedi. was applied to Yahweh 
by the later Old Testament prophets. Yahweh would redeem 
Israel from the Captivity (Jer. 50:33, 34; Isa. 43:14). He 
would redeem Jerusalem (Isa. 52:3). The tradition of a 
dramatic rescue from an Egyptian bondage now began to 
take shape (Exod. 6:6; 15:13, etc.). Yahweh was the Savior 
and Redeemer (Isa. 60:16). He ransomed his people from 
the power of death and the grave (Hos. 13:14). He also 
redeems the individual from destruction, or "the pit"; and he 
executes mishpat, or "judgment," for all that are oppressed 
(Ps. 103:4; Lam. 3:58). As a compassionate goel, Yahweh 
became the Redeemer of mankind. 

' We have made selections indicating the drift and the historic atmosphere of 
this remarkable prophecy; but the opening chapters of the exilic Isaiah should be 
read entire (beginning at chap. 40) in order to get their exalting stimulus. 



CHAPTER XXI 

THE JEWISH CHURCH AND THE TORAH 

In the post-exilic epoch, Judah was reconstituted under foreign 
authorities. — On the political, or secular, side of history, the 
outstanding fact of the post-exilic age is the re-estabhshment 
of Judah.' The Judeans, or "Jews," were the remnant of the 
old Hebrew, or Israelite, kingdom. The characteristic figure 
in the political rehabilitation of Judah is, of course, Nehemiah. 
This man was a wealthy Jew, attached to the Persian imperial 
court. Judah had been already marked off as a province of 
the empire; and Nehemiah was one of a succession of governors 
appointed to rule it under the authority of Persia. He is 
identified with the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. This 
achievement is a fitting symbol of his relation to Judaism; 
for he gave a strong impetus to the tendency to segregate 
the Jewish people in distinction from the heathen peoples of 
the ancient world. The following quotation gives an inter- 
esting glimpse at the reconstructive process, and suggests the 
economic and social position of Nehemiah and the leaders of 
Judaism. 

From the time that I was appointed to be their governor in the land 
of Judah, from the twentieth year even unto the two and thirtieth year 
of Artaxerxes the king, twelve years, I and my brethren have not eaten 
the bread of the governor. But the former governors that were before 
me were chargeable unto the people, and took of them bread and wine, 
at the rate of forty shekels of silver. Yea, even their servants bare 
rule over the people. But so did not I, because of the fear of God. 
Yea, also I contmued in the work of this wall. Neither bought we any 

^ This chapter with those that follow, like the rest of our sociological study, is 
not an investigation of details. For the treatment of events it is necessary to go to 
the many excellent historical works now available. 

209 



2IO SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

land. And all my servants were gathered thither unto the work. 
Moreover, there were at my table, of the Jews and the rulers, a hundred 
and fifty men, besides those that came to us from among the nations 
that were round about us. Now that which was prepared for one day 
was one ox and six choice sheep. Also fowls were prepared for me; and 
once in ten days store of all sorts of wine. Yet for all this I demanded 
not the bread of the governor, because the bondage was heavy upon 
this people. Remember unto me, my God, for good, all that I have 
done for this people (Neh. 5:14-19). 

The work of Judaism was the consolidation, or hardening, 
of the prophetic religion in the habits of a sufficient number 
of people to make it a permanent social force in the world. 
The reconstituted Israel became "the Jewish church"; and 
although the Jews often lost sight of their larger mission, or 
gave it a grotesque and impossible interpretation, the post- 
exilic history is as full of broad human meaning and service 
as the earlier and more creative times of the great prophets. 

The Jews, like other peoples, misunderstood their own 
past. — ^The post-exiHc Israelites imagined themselves to be of 
"pure," or "unmixed," racial origin. They did not under- 
stand that the Hebrew kingdom had originated at the point 
of coalescence between Israelites and Amorites. The real 
facts of Hebrew history and religion were buried in a mass of 
old writings which only the few had opportunity to examine; 
and even these few lacked the training necessary to interpret 
everything they read. The majority of post-exilic Jews were 
so taken up with the struggle for existence that they had no 
time for careful study and knowledge. The most the popular 
mind could carry was a rough averaging of past history 
in the form of tradition. The time before the Exile was con- 
verted into an age of supernatural wonders; and Israel took 
a new start amid a world laboring under difficulties and 
problems of its own. 

The "Torah," or "Law of Moses," was compiled and adopted 
after the Captivity. — ^We have already learned that the establish- 



THE JEWISH CHURCH AND THE TORAH 



211 



ment of a "canonical," or official, sacred literature began 
under King Josiah before the Exile. At that time, the "first 
edition" of Deuteronomy was brought forward from the 
Temple at Jerusalem, and officially adopted through the 
influence of the party which had obtained control of the gov- 
ernment (p. 191, supra). According to the Deuteronomic 
law, the entire machinery of worship was to be centralized 
in the capital city. From this achievement, as a beginning, 
the "Law of Moses," or "Torah," was prepared on the basis 
of traditions, documents, and law codes, that had been 
accumulating for many centuries. 

The men who brought together into a single corpus the 
complicated material called the "Torah," will never be 
known. But we have the account of Ezra, "the priest and 
scribe" (Ezra 7:21), a half -mythical figure, who looms up 
suddenly in the post-exilic period with the "Torah" in his 
hand. This Law, which we may suppose to be approximately 
our "Pentateuch," was publicly adopted and acknowledged 
by the Jewish authorities in the age now under consideration 
(Neh., chap. 8). But it is important to observe that even the 
Jewish tradition itself admits that the Law had no vogue before 
the Exile. "Our kings, our princes, our priests, and our fathers 
did not keep thy Torah, nor hearken unto thy commandments 
and thy testimonies wherewith thou didst testify against them 
(Neh. 9:34). 

The other books of the Hebrew Bible were prepared and 
adopted at various times between the Exile and the Christian 
Era.— The Torah was the nucleus around which the Old Tes- 
tament, or the Hebrew Bible, took form. The times at which 
the other books were written and taken up into the sacred 
literature are not known to us; but the indications are that 
the Hebrew Bible came into existence very slowly. When 
the Sacred Canon was at last completed, it was referred to, 
not as one book, but as "the Law, the Prophets, and the 



212 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

Writings" {Tor ah, Nebiim, u' Kethuhim). Thus we see that 
the Old Testament, in the form under which it stands before 
us, reverses the actual order of historical development, for the 
prophets did their work before the Law was known; and the 
Torah was one of the results of their struggle.^ 

'Not until after the Exile did the word "torah" acquire the modem, technical 
sense of the "Mosaic" law (Ezra 7:6 ff.)' On the canon, see Wildeboer, Origin of the 
Old Testament Canon (London, 1895), pp. 22, 31; and Ryle, Canon of the Old Testa- 
ment (London, 1904); chap, v. 



CHAPTER XXII 
JUDAISM AS EXTERNAL AUTHORITY 

The teachings of the insurgent prophets now became one 
element in a legal scheme of religion. — The preparation and 
adoption of the Torah took place after the Exile because the 
mind of Israel was now ready for it. If the people had not 
been prepared for the Law by the experiences of their national 
history, they would not have accepted it in the post-exilic 
period. The history of all the nations of antiquity records 
the growth of traditions which, in one way or another, came to 
be accepted as authoritative. Hebrew life was no departure 
from this rule. In the time before the Exile, two traditions, 
represented by two opposing schools of prophecy, battled for 
legal recognition and status. In the final issue, the Baal 
tradition was defeated; and the Yahweh tradition became 
"authoritative" in the eyes of posterity. Law is not the 
cause of social evolution ; it is rather a deposit of history, and 
a condition of subsequent experience. The Mosaic Law, 
instead of being the force that set the peculiar development of 
Israel in motion, was itself the product of that evolution. 

To the Jews, the Torah was the most sacred part of the Hebrew 
Bible.— While the entire Old Testament was looked upon as 
the product of divine inspiration, the Jews venerated the 
Torah as the result of a peculiarly high revelation. In the 
Law of Moses, God spoke with a weight and an intensity not 
found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Hence the books of 
the prophets were placed on a level of inspiration decidedly 
inferior to that of the Torah. This appears to be strange to 
the modern Christian who has been taught that the divine 
quality attaches equally and uniformly to the entire Old 

213 



214 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

Testament. But the Jew found nothing unnatural or difficult 
in such an apprehension of the Scriptures. 

The Torah enthroned the priesthood, and silenced the 
prophets. — The adoption of the Torah was a visible guaranty 
that the law of God was no longer a subject of party dispute. 
The conflict of rival schools of prophecy had ended. From 
now on, the divine will could not be an open question, as it had 
been before the Exile. For the commands of God were now 
crystallized in the form of a hook. Religion was made a matter 
of minute and carefully prescribed rites and ceremonies 
designed to guard and preserve the worship of God from all 
profane contact. The worship, or "cultus," was in charge of 
administrators, or priests. The commands of God, being in 
written form, the scribes and priests were its natural executors 
and interpreters. The practical effect of the Torah, therefore, 
was to set the priestly class in the very center of Jewish life. 

Thus we see why there was no place for new prophets 
among the controlling factors of the Jewish church. Prophecy, 
which was one of the most important forces in the evolution of 
the Bible, was banished from history by the Bible itself. 
"There is no more any prophet!" exclaims a post-exilic writer, 
whose words are a commentary on this phase of Judaism 
(Ps. 74:9). 

But while there was no longer a field for the ministry of 
new prophets like Amos and Hosea, the work of the pre-exilic 
prophets was not lost. Their essential demands were present 
in the Torah itself; and their books, although viewed as the 
product of a lower degree of inspiration, were included within 
the Hebrew Bible. The very insistence of the Jewish church 
upon the exclusive worship of One God made it impossible 
to ignore the work of the remarkable men whose labors had 
raised ethical monotheism into a Hving power in the world. 

The legal ritual did not satisfy the highest spiritual needs, but it 
practically extinguished idolatry. It gave palpable expression to the 



JUDAISM AS EXTERNAL AUTHORITY 215 

spiritual nature of Jehovah [Yahweh], and around and within the ritual, 
prophetic truths gained a hold of Israel such as they had never had before. 
The book of Psalms is the proof how much of the highest religious truth, 
derived not from the Law but from the Prophets, dwelt in the heart of 
the nation, and gave spiritual substance to the barren forms of the ritual.' 

Under Judaism, Bible religion took the form of an authoritative 
decree laid down by an oriental sovereign. — As Jewish life 
dropped out of touch with the past, the pre-exilic history of 
the Hebrews was less and less understood. The ancient 
writings remained, it is true; but the scientific method of 
historical research had not yet been born. In this atmosphere 
the Hebrew Bible (our "Old Testament") reached its final 
shape. Yahweh was now systematically pictured as the 
Creator of the universe. The Old Testament, in fact, begins 
as a kind of universal history. But in the third chapter of 
Genesis the purpose of Scripture comes to light. The problem 
of "good and evil" emerges into view (Gen., chaps. 3 f.). 
Yahweh's first method of dealing with the problem is that of 
physical destruction through the Flood (Gen., chaps. 6f.). 
When this fails he tries the method of ethical redemption, by 
training the children of Abraham to be a blessing to all the 
families of the earth (Gen,, chaps. 12 f.). From out of the 
flame and smoke and thunder of Sinai he promulgates the 
"Torah," as a finality, once for all, just as an absolute oriental 
sovereign lays down his decrees (Exod., chaps. 3 f.). The 
modern conception of historical development was impossible 
to the ancient mind. So under Judaism the Bible religion 
took a form which (unconsciously) denied the fact of develop- 
ment itself. 

' W. Robertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church (New York, 1891), 
PP- 2,^3, 314; cf. Carpenter, The Bible in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1903), p. 153- 



CHAPTER XXIII 

JUDAISM REJECTS THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 

Society has always included contrary tendencies within its 
developing structure. — The growth of social institutions 
takes place at the point of contact between two or more 
classes, races, or "interests." In the long period before the 
Exile, Hebrew society was ruled alternately by the Israelite 
and Amorite traditions inherited from its double ancestry. 
When the Israelite tradition was dominant, the social problem 
was recognized; and when the Amorite tradition obtained 
ascendency, the social problem was rejected or suppressed. 
The ruin of the nation led to the triumph of the Israehte 
standpoint and the establishment of "the Jewish church." 
Like all social institutions, however, the Jewish church came 
into being at the point of contact between "interests." 
Although Judaism developed the appearance of great fixity 
and solidity, the principles on which it was based represented 
contrary tendencies. "Jewish religion," as has been truly 
said, "is to a large extent a fusion of inconsistent elements, of 
prophetic and priestly origin, respectively."^ 

The social problem was at length rejected by the forces that 
silenced prophecy and enthroned the priesthood. — Speaking of the 
priests in the Roman period. Professor Riggs observes: "The 
emoluments of their office brought them wealth and luxury, 
and gave them little interest in the spiritual demands of their 
exalted position."^ The priests and scribes were the custodians 
and administrators of the Torah; and while in most cases 
they were devoted to the worship of One God as earnestly 
as the great prophets, they tended to identify religion with 

^ Cheyne, Jewish Religious Life after the Exile (New York, 1898), p. 28. 
^ Riggs, History of the Jewish People (New York, 1900), p. 227. 

216 



JUDAISM REJECTS THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 217 

the ritual forms and ceremonies by which the One God was 
worshiped. RituaHsm was necessary to the devotion and 
consecration by which the Bible religion grew strong in the 
world. "For the great majority of people, rites and ceremonies 
are a necessary expression of their religion, and a necessary 
aid to its nourishnient."' But rituahsm carries its own peril 
with it. The danger that lay before Judaism was the tendency 
to fight the worship of "other gods" without opposing the 
injustice and unrighteousness with which "other gods" were 
identified by the great prophets. A large part of the member- 
ship of the Jewish church compromised with rituahsm; and 
this was true especially of the leading priestly families and 
their wealthy allies. While Judaism brought much that was 
noble into the world, and while it estabhshed a positive 
religious advance, it included a strong tendency to bring back 
the ancient " Amorite" tradition under a new and subtle form. 

The work of the great prophets before the Exile gave 
expression to a prejudice against the wealthy, in which there 
was little or no attempt to draw distinctions; and it was only 
as this prejudice was partly overcome that rich men like 
Nehemiah {supra, p. 209) were able to share actively in the 
reconstitution of Israel and the establishment of the Jewish 
church. Wealth is necessary to the religious process. The 
reconstitution of Israel was very largely the work of conse- 
crated rich men. These men paid the biUs of Judaism; and 
in time the upper classes began to regard themselves as the 
proprietors of the Jewish church. There was always a 
tendency among the Jews to identify the wealthy and the 
priestly classes, and merge them in a single body opposed to 
the interests of the common man. 

Although there could no longer be a conflict of parties over 
the question. What is the will of God ? (since the divine Law 
was now in book form), yet there could be a difference of opin- 

' Editorial, BiUical World, (Chicago, November, 191 1), p. 292. 



2i8 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

ion over the interpretation of the Law. And here the priests 
and scribes, and their wealthy allies, had the advantage over 
the common man. For the Law was in their official keeping 
and they could interpret it in their own way. The great 
prophets would have denounced the forces that ultimately 
came into control of Judaism. According to the New Testa- 
ment, the scribes and Pharisees tithed mint, and anise, and 
cummin, but left undone the weightier matters of the Torah 
— especially justice, or mishpat (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42). 
They devoured widows' houses; and then made long prayers 
(Mark 12:38-40; cf. Isa. 5:8, etc.). They unconsciously 
witnessed that they were the successors, or "sons," of them 
that slew the prophets (Matt. 23:31). 

On the whole, the social problem was rejected by the Jewish 
church. The problem itself was not abolished, of course; but 
it no longer took the positive, creative place in religious life 
that it held before the Exile. This was because the religion of 
Israel was already created. There would have been nothing 
for prophecy to do at this time, save to criticize. And thus the 
rejection of the social problem went along with the silencing 
of prophecy and the enthronement of the priesthood. 

The common man took the same place in Jewish society that 
he had in all the ancient civilizations. — While the re-establishment 
of Israel brought with it a positive religious advance, and 
registered a large gain on the spiritual side of the evolutionary 
process, it brought no great relief to the common man. From 
the purely economic standpoint, Jewish society was organized 
upon the same institutional basis that prevailed in all the great 
civilizations of antiquity.^ The Jewish upper classes held the 

^ The Torah enjoins kindness and charity for the poor; but even supposing 
charity was actually practiced as there demanded, it still remains a fact that charity 
has no efEect on the rate of wages. Other things being equal, the civilization in which 
there is the largest spirit of charity will be the one in which the common man will 
ultimately achieve the largest liberty. But it is the rate of wages, and not the practice 
of technical "charity," that measures the liberty of the people and the final success 
of civilization. The picture drawn by ben Sirach, at which we glance below, accords 
with all that we are able to discover about the lower classes in Jewish society. 



JUDAISM REJECTS THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 219 

lower orders in slavery, monopolized the soil, and controlled 
the operations of commerce and manufacture. A most inter- 
esting and instructive piece of testimony relative to the Jewish 
estimate of the common man is found in the Wisdom of Sirach, 
which we reproduce : 

The wisdom of the scribe cometh by opportunity of leisure; and he 
that hath little business shall become wise. 

How shall he become wise that holdeth the plow; that glorieth in the 
shaft of the goad; that driveth oxen, and is occupied in their labors, and 
whose discourse is of the stock of buUs? He will set his heart upon 
turning his furrows; and his wakefulness is to give his heifers their 
fodder. 

So is every artificer and workmaster, that passeth his time by night 
as by day; they that cut gravings of signets; and his diligence is to 
make great variety. He will set his heart to preserve likeness in his 
portraiture, and will be wakeful to finish his work. 

So is the smith sitting by the anvil, and considering the unwrought 
iron. The vapor of the fire will waste his flesh; and in the heat of the 
furnace will he wrestle. The noise of the hammer will be ever in his ear; 
and his eyes are upon the pattern of the vessel. He will set his heart 
upon perfecting his works; and he will be wakeful to adorn them perfectly. 

So is the potter sitting at his work, and turning the wheel about with 
his feet; who is alway anxiously set at his work; and all his handywork 
is by number. He will fashion the clay with his arm, and will bend its 
strength in front of his feet. He will apply his heart to finish the glazing ; 
and he will be wakeful to make clean the furnace. 

All these put their trust in their hands; and each becometh wise in 
his own work. Without these shall not a city be inhabited; and men 
shall not sojourn nor walk up and down. 

They shall not be sought for in the council of the people; and in the 
assembly they shall not mount on high. They shall not sit on the seat 
of the judge; and they shall not understand the covenant of judgment. 
Neither shall they declare instruction and judgment; and where parables 
are, they shall not be found. But they will maintain the fabric of the 
world; and in the handywork of their craft is their prayer (Sirach 
38:24-34).^ 

' The Book of the Wisdom of Sirach was written more than a century before the 
time of Christ. It was never adopted into the Hebrew Bible. We quote from the 
Revised Apocrypha (Thomas Nelson & Sons, New York), but with different punctua- 
tion and paragraph arrangement. 



CHAPTER XXIV 
THE STRUGGLE FOR DELIVERANCE 

The Jews longed for deliverance from trouble. — In the midst 
of social conditions like those at which we have just glanced, 
it is but natural that a great longing for deliverance and help 
should grow up. The Jewish "messianic hope" has been one 
of the stock themes of Christian theology. It was at first 
viewed by the gentile world as a thing essentially unique, 
standing out of relation to the common thought of mankind; 
and the subject was not set in its true light until recently. 
Only in the last generation have we been able to see it in con- 
nection with the universal forces that move history. 

All peoples have had the desire to escape from difficulty 
and graduate into a happier condition. Without this feeling, 
the movement of progressive civilization would be unthink- 
able. The Jewish longing for deliverance, redemption, or 
salvation, was founded upon tendencies that are potent 
wherever men are found; but the hope itself took a form 
peculiar to the time and the people among whom it arose. 
The thoughts of the Jews naturally flowed in the channels 
cut by their ancestry. The pre-exilic Hebrews, like other 
ancient peoples, looked up to their god for help. Where 
the Babylonians trusted in Marduk, and the Egyptians in 
Amon, the Hebrews had faith in Yahweh. They believed 
that Yahweh would save them from their enemies and make 
them triumphant over their foes, in his good time, or "day." 
The original idea of the Day of Yahweh was therefore base 
and materialistic. In opposition to this view, the great 
prophets declared that the Day would be (i) a time of punish- 
ment, after which (2) a righteous remnant would be saved 
and glorified. The destruction and exile of Israel was regarded 



THE STRUGGLE FOR DELIVERANCE 221 

as the fulfilment of the first part of this prediction. "Israel 
went into captivity for their iniquity, because they trespassed 
against me" (Ezek. 39:23). After the people had received 
of Yahweh's hand "double" for all their sins (Jer. 16:18; 
Isa. 40:1-2), and after Judah was reconstituted in the Holy 
Land, the second part of the prophetic anticipation began to 
be heralded. For it was clear to all the people — upper and 
lower classes alike — that the actual state of things prevailing 
after the Captivity could not, by any stretch of the imagina- 
tion, be the miraculous Utopia of the prophets. So the idea 
of a coming time of deliverance worked like a ferment in the 
Jewish mind. Redemption was to be accomplished by Yah- 
weh through the instrumentality of his "anointed one," or 
"Messiah" (mashiach). These expectations included various 
elements of a supernatural, apocalyptic nature, familiar 
enough to Christians in later ages. 

The messianic hope took different forms among the different 
social classes in Judaism. — Common to the expectation of all 
classes was the miraculous, apocalyptic, supernatural char- 
acter of the coming age of glory. But, on the ground of this 
common view, there was a very sharp distinction between 
the messianic ideas held by different elements among the 
Jews. 

Upper-class Messianism.— The great priestly families, the 
officials, and the wealthy in general, were opposed to the 
domination of Judah by foreign powers. The drain of tribute 
paid to outsiders reduced the amount which the Jewish upper 
classes themselves could extract from the country. They 
were therefore theoretically in favor of breaking the foreign 
yoke. But, in a prudent spirit, they wanted to leave the 
deliverance to the intervention of God himself. Being in 
better circumstances than the mass of the people, they could 
better afford to "wait on God." Their idea of the messianic 
age, and of the Messiah himself, was in theory pohtical; but 



222 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

in practice it was tempered by a discreet accommodation to 
the powers that actually ruled the world. The upper-class 
idea of the messianic age is found in the following passage: 
"Strangers shall stand and feed your flocks; and foreigners 
shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers. But ye shall 
be named 'the priests of Yahweh.' Men shall call you 'the 
ministers of our God.' Ye shall eat the wealth of the nations; 
and to their glory shall ye succeed" (Isa. 6i : 5-6). 

Lower-class Messianism. — On the other hand, while the 
Jewish lower classes looked also for a supernatural golden age, 
their idea of the messianic time differed from that of the 
aristocracy. For they desired not only to be released from 
the rule of outsiders ; but, in the spirit of Amos and the other 
great prophets, they wanted to be freed as well from the rule 
of the Jewish upper classes. The lower-class idea found 
expression in the following passages: "And there shall come 
forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a branch out of 
his roots shall bear fruit . . . . ; and he shall not judge after 
the sight of his eyes, neither decide after the hearing of his 
ears; but with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and 

decide with equity for the meek of the land He shall 

bring forth mishpat to the nations He shall bring forth 

mishpat in truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged till 
he have set mishpat in the earth; and the isles shall wait for 
his law" (Isa. 11:1-4; 42:1-4). 

Thus we see that the messianic idea took different forms 
among the different elements of society. The upper classes 
wanted foreigners to come and do their work, while the Jews 
ate the wealth of the nations and succeeded to the world's 
glory; but the lower classes were infected with social revolu- 
tion, and wanted to set mishpat, or justice, in the land.^ 
Unless the sociological and economic aspects of Jewish Messian- 

^ The Messianism of the masses, however, does not seem to have been so sane as 
that of the great prophets. 



THE STRUGGLE FOR DELIVERANCE 223 

ism are held sharply in mind, the real nature of the situation 
will not be clear to us. 

The long period between the re-estabhshment of Judah and 
the time of the New Testament is complicated by the rise and 
fall of Jewish parties and by conflicts between Jews and 
foreigners. The sources of historical evidence for this period 
are scanty; and the only clue to the interpretation of the 
evidence is the play of interests moving in the channels cut out 
by the evolution of Israel before the Captivity. The Law was 
not always interpreted in the interest of the upper classes. 
In the Greek period, for instance, the Torah was the symbol of 
revolt against wealthy priests and foreign oppressors. But this 
revolt itself established a priestly government which in time 
fell out of touch with popular interests. 

A revolutionary uprising by the lower class caused the Romans 
to destroy Judah. — The final catastrophe of Judaism occurred 
under the Roman empire, and is directly traceable to a mes- 
sianic uprising of the lower class. It was begun by the common 
people, and at first had the form of an insurrection against the 
Roman authority. Its real nature is well exhibited in the 
chronicle of Josephus, a Jewish historian who belonged to the 
aristocracy. With reference to the conduct of the upper class 
in this crisis, Josephus writes: 

The men of power, with the high priests, as also all the part of the 
multitude that were desirous of peace, took courage, and seized upon the 
upper city [Mount Sion]. 

Concerning the lower class at this time, he says: 

The seditious part [of the people] had the lower city and the temple 

in their power They grew bolder, and carried their undertaking 

further The king's soldiers were overpowered by their multitude 

and boldness; and so they gave way, and were driven out of the upper 
city by force. The others then set fire to the house of Ananias the high 
priest, and to the palaces of Agrippa and Berenice; after which they 
carried the fire to the place where the archives were reposited, and made 
haste to burn the contracts belonging to their creditors, and thereby to 



224 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

dissolve their obligations for paying their debts; and this was done in 
order to gain the multitude of those who had been debtors, and that 
they might persuade the poorer sort to join in their insurrection with 
safety against the more wealthy; so the keepers of the records fled 

away, and the rest set fire to them 

At which time some of the men of power, and of the high priests, 

went into the vaults underground, and concealed themselves The 

high priest was caught where he had concealed himself in an aqueduct; 
he was slain, together with Hezekiah his brother ^ 

Being convinced that it was impossible to avoid revolution, 
the upper class attempted to organize the movement, hoping 
to make terms with Rome later. But this was impossible; 
and the situation drifted into anarchy. At last, in the year 
70 A.D., a Roman army destroyed the city of Jerusalem; and 
the Hebrew nation vanished from the stage of history. Long 
before this, the Jews had been widely scattered over the world; 
but now they were a people without a country, save where 
they became citizens of other nations. 

In the midst of this time of high social stress, when the 
religion of the Bible seemed to be on the point of destruction, 
it went through another stage of development, and began to 
spread abroad in the world under the form of Christianity. 
This phase of its evolution wiU occupy us in the following part 
of our study. 

' Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book II, chap, xvii, sees. 5, 6, 9. 



PART IV 
THE SPREAD OF BIBLE RELIGION 



FOREWORD TO PART IV 

In this part of our study we seek to learn how the rehgion 
of the Bible escaped the limits of Israel and spread abroad 
in the world. Without minimizing the great work of Jesus 
and Paul, we try to show that the interpretation of Christian- 
ity, as well as that of Judaism, should reckon with the external, 
social order. It has been claimed that the New Testament 
stands for a purely personal evolution; and that Christianity 
was a movement outside the existing state-religion. There is 
a sense in which this is true; but the same truth applies to 
Judaism and the Old Testament. For at the time the great 
prophets did their work, they too, like Jesus and the early 
Christians, were antagonistic to the "estabhshed" religion; 
and the prophetic point of view did not become "official" 
for several hundred years. The New Testament religion 
passed through the same phases. The mere fact that a 
religious movement in antiquity is not at once articulated 
with state machinery is no proof that such a movement has 
no sociological meaning. 

A word of caution may be well here. Our emphasis upon 
sociological and economic facts does not mean that we find in 
these facts a complete philosophy, or explanation, of history. 
Sociological investigation, hke other kinds of scientific research, 
deals with a series of "unknown quantities." The chemist, 
for instance, gives us working-formulas for chemical reactions 
between the "elements" of matter; but the elements them- 
selves remain a mystery. And even though chemistry has the 
character of a scientific discipline, it does not reveal what an 
"element" is. In the same way, sociology looks upon persons 
as elements in the social process. But while personaHty 
comes within the terms of social evolution, sociology does not 

227 



228 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

undertake to solve the mystery of personality any more than 
chemistry undertakes to solve the mystery of matter. Soci- 
ology, in other words, deals with a complex mass of unknown 
quantities. The appHcation of the foregoing remarks to the 
previous chapters, and to those that foUow, is evident. In 
studying the spread of Bible religion, we claim only that the 
work of Jesus lends itself to interpretation "within the terms 
of the social process," even though the personality of Jesus 
remains a mystery. The rehgion of the Bible, in its outstand- 
ing idea of the Redeeming God, supplies the foundation on 
which Christian history has been transacted. Sociology aims 
not to solve the problem of Jesus, but merely to assist in the 
statement of the problem. 



CHAPTER XXV 
THE WORK OF JESUS 

The religion of the Bible at length took a new form. — Chris- 
tianity arose within the Jewish church in a way similar to 
that in which Methodism arose within the Church of England. 
Jesus was an adherent of the old faith ; and the first Christians 
were viewed, by themselves and by others, merely as a party 
within the fold of Judaism. The confession attributed to 
Paul, in the Book of Acts, indicates the standpoint of the dis- 
ciples of Jesus: "After the Way which they call 'a sect,' 
so serve I the God of our fathers, believing all things which are 
according to the Law, and which are written in the Prophets" 
(Acts 24:14). The Christians at first could only testify 
that they had a "Way." This Way had been taught by 
Jesus; and he was himself the personal symbol of the Way. 
Christianity, being a new phase of the fundamental religion 
of the Bible, addressed itself primarily to the feelings; and the 
Christians were slow in perceiving its logic. The term " Chris- 
tianity" does not occur in the Bible. The name "Christian" 
is found in the New Testament only three times (Acts 11 : 26; 
26:28; I Pet. 4:16). This name was coined apparently by 
enemies of the movement. Christianity carries with it a part of 
the sense of Jewish messianism, together with a new meaning. 

Christianity is continuous, but not identical, with Judaism.— 
In approaching Christianity and the New Testament from the 
sociological point of view, we are confronted at the start by the 
fact of continuity. The entire Bible is embraced within the 
scope of a single process of evolution. Christianity is an 
outgrowth of Judaism. The New Testament is bound up 
with the Bible of the Hebrews, logicaUy as well as physically. 
The Christian church is the child of the Old Testament 

229 



230 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

church. The Christian saint finds his prototype in the Israehte 
in whom there is no guile. In brief, Christianity is a develop- 
ment within the terms of the religion of Israel. To claim 
anything less than this would be to cut the ground from 
under the feet of Christianity. The fact of continuity has 
always been recognized by the common sense of the great 
leaders of the church, as well as by the instinct of the 
rank and file; although from the very first, some persons 
have supposed that the Christians were setters-forth of 
strange gods. Judaism and Christianity alike worship the 
Redeeming God of the Bible; yet they contemplate the 
redemption of the world from different points of view. The 
difference between them turns around the work of Jesus ; and 
although the contrast is very small in theory, its practical 
effects are of large importance. 

The religion of the Old Testament has a tendency to take the 
character of an abstract idea. — ^A Christian writer once told 
the Hebrews that the character of God was expressed by the 
Hebrew prophets in "divers portions and in divers manners" 
(Heb. i:i). The prophets evolved a long series of thoughts 
which at length flowed together into the conception of the 
Redeeming God. This agrees with our study of the develop- 
ment of Bible religion. The God-idea which breaks forth on 
us from the Old Testament as a whole is the product of a long 
evolution. Different parts of the finished conception were 
supplied by different prophets and schools of thought. The 
Jew — the post-exilic Hebrew — inherited a "philosophy," even 
though his conceptions were not evolved in the same way 
that Greek or German philosophy develops. The Greek phi- 
losopher went through a process of abstract thinking. The 
Hebrew lived through a process of concrete experience. The 
methods in the two cases were different; but the final results 
are in the same category. Both Jew and Greek evolved 
philosophy, but by different routes. 



THE WORK OF JESUS 231 

The Jew, however, was prevented by his "group-interests" 
from viewing his religion as a philosophical abstraction.— The 
religion of Yahweh was bound up with the national welfare 
of the Hebrews, just as the religion of Chemosh was bound up 
with the national welfare of the Moabites. The battles 
of Israel were the battles of Yahweh. Church and State were 
united. The religion of Israel was the symbol of national 
unity; and it was an assertion of the nation's integrity as 
against the rest of the world. This principle was true not 
only of the old Hebrew kingdom before the Exile; it was 
equally true of post-exilic Judaism. Religion was bound 
up closely with the interests of Jewish patriotism, and with 
pride in the Hebrew race as the "chosen people of God." It 
was the interpretation of his religion in terms of his own 
"group-interest," then, that prevented the Jew from taking 
his religion as a mere abstract philosophy. It was this con- 
sideration alone that gave life to post-exilic Judaism; and so, 
even today, orthodox Judaism is a matter of race.^ 

Since gentile society cannot become Hebrew, it necessarily 
treats the Old Testament religion as a philosophical abstraction.— 
For many reasons, orthodox Judaism is impossible as a cos- 
mopolitan religion. The foundation of the problem is the 
conflict between the group-interests of Jews and gentiles. Any 
foreign people who desired to practice the religion of the 
Hebrews in ancient times would have had to renounce their 
political integrity and merge themselves in Israel. But it was 
practically impossible to break down the barriers between 
ancient social groups in any such free and easy fashion. 
Judaism, in spite of its deep spirituality and its high moral 
appeal, could not be identified with the patriotism of the 
gentile because it was already identified with the patriotism 
of the Jew. While a few foreigners might, as individuals, 
attach themselves to Israel, the gentile world could not enter 

' We are not here speaking of "reformed" Judaism. 



232 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

into the Jewish nation and become Hebrews. Consequently, 
the gentiles remained outside of Judaism. In the very 
nature of the case, the non- Jewish world looks at Judaism 
from the outside. And when the Old Testament religion is 
regarded thus, in a purely external way, without being medi- 
ated by group-interests, it has the character of a bloodless 
abstraction, devoid of hf e and meaning. The prophetic identi- 
fication of God with morality meant little or nothing to the 
gentile. This is why the Hebrew Bible interests the Christian 
so little as compared with the New Testament. The Law 
and the Prophets never can be so popular as the Gospels. 

How, then, has the gentile world received the Bible religion? — 
It is a plain matter of fact that this rehgion, which was at 
first confined to a social group known as "Israel," overflowed 
its barriers and spread throughout the world. How did this 
result come to pass ? How did the rehgion of the Redeeming 
God break through the social barrier that lay between Jew and 
gentile ? What force made a breach in "the middle wall of 
partition"? How was the God of Israel appropriated by 
the gentile world? How did the Bible religion clothe itself 
in the form of the Christian church ? The solution of this 
problem is as mighty as it is commonplace; and it involves 
far more than appears on the surface. We cannot really under- 
stand the Christian church as a fact of human history unless 
we understand the Old Testament. We shall see the New 
Testament through a clouded glass until we are able to see 
it as a logical item in the process that began far back in old 
Hebrew times. 

The central and most impressive ceremony around which the 
Christian church is organized. — In approaching the institution 
called "the Christian church," the sociologist at once investi- 
gates the most important rite, or ceremony, practiced by 
organized bodies of believers. It is not the Christian organiza- 
tion itself that calls for special study and explanation. People 



THE WORK OF JESUS 233 

organize for all sorts of purposes. We find social groups 
everywhere. It is not the mere fact that Christians are 
gathered together in groups that calls for special attention. 
Social science wants to know what the Christian church 
actually does, as an organization, to distinguish it from other 
organizations. 

The central and most impressive rite, or ceremony, of the 
Christian church is the "Holy Communion." In this rite, 
the believer partakes of the flesh and blood of Jesus (Luke 22 : 
19, 20, etc.). The Communion is the figure of a spiritual 
experience in which the Christian lays hold, through Jesus, upon 
the Redeeming God of the Bible. This impressive and affecting 
ceremony is the sign of the bond between Jesus and his fol- 
lowers; and it stands broadly for " the Christian life." In that 
life, Christ is "formed " in the believer (Gal. 4:19); the disciple 
is "hidden" with Christ in the Redeeming God (Col. 3:3). 
All these figures come within the symbolic meaning of the 
Communion. The central ceremony practiced by the Chris- 
tian church bears witness that Jesus makes the God of the 
Bible a reality for the world. It signifies the essential fact of 
Christian experience; but it does not explain how Jesus accom- 
plishes this work. The fact, and the explanation of it, are two 
different things. 

It is a mere, plain fact of history that the "middle wall of 
partition" was in some way broken down by the man Jesus, 
so that those who were "alienated from the commonwealth 
of Israel," those who were "far off," those who were "without 
God in the world"— all such were "made near" (Eph. 2:11- 
14).' This does not mean, however, that the work of Jesus 
was only for the gentile world. The New Testament, as a 
whole, does not picture his mission as limited to the gentiles. 

' In this great passage it is noticeable that the author of Ephesians employs 
the symbol of the flesh and blood of Jesus (vss. 13 and 15), and expressly views him 
as building upon the foundation of "the prophets" (vs. 20.) The author plainly 
has the "social group" category in view. 



234 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

The gospel was not only to those that were "far off" (i.e., the 
gentiles), but to those who were "nigh," to the Jew first, and 
then to the Greek (Eph. 2:17; Rom. 1:16). According to 
the Book of Acts, God is no respecter of persons; but in every 
nation those that fear him and work righteousness are accept- 
able to him (Acts 10:34, 35). This long-range observa- 
tion of Christianity prepares us to draw closer to the facts, 
and inquire how the middle wall of partition was broken 
down. 

The missing factor in Jewish religion. — We have already pointed 
out that, in the eyes of the gentile world, the Old Testament 
religion was necessarily an abstract, unreal thing, devoid of 
life or meaning. The only consideration that prevented it from 
having the same character for the Jewish people was their 
"group-interests," i.e., their patriotism, and their race-pride 
as "God's elect." While Judaism has an immense potential 
value, its propagating impulse remains therefore an affair of 
nationality and race. 

Theoretically, Judaism is a complete and perfect religion. 
It dramatizes God as the leading actor in the redemption 
of the world. Yet, at the conclusion of the Old Testament 
process, the redemptive idea of God is left suspended in the 
form of an abstraction. Every idea that moves the world 
at large has to be brought to a center, or condensed, in 
the life of an individual. The historian Froude has observed 
that "principles are identified with persons, who form as it 
were the focus on which the passions concentrate."^ But in 
the nature of the situation, the process of Hebrew spiritual 
development could not attach itself to any one prophet. The 
work of the prophets was to rebuke injustice; their mighty 
contribution to the progress of the idea of God was incidental, 
or secondary. They expressed the character of God in " divers 
portions" and in "divers manners." No prophet, or school of 

' Froude, History of England (New York, 1873), Vol. I, p. 196. 



THE WORK OF JESUS 235 

prophets, deserves to be credited with the full-orbed idea of 
the Redeeming God, which flames out on us from the Old 
Testament as a whole. The redemptive idea hangs in the 
air as a beautiful philosophy, to be learned in all its fulness 
only by the student who examines the Old Testament with 
more care than the vast majority of persons, either Jew or 
gentile, can afford to give. 

How the religion of redemption was thrown open to the world 
through the ministry of Jesus.— Although we can never know the 
early life of Jesus, it must be assumed that the tradition is 
correct which represents him as a student of the Hebrew 
Bible. He was not necessarily a student in the scholastic, 
or academic, sense; nor could he have investigated the Old 
Testament in a scientific and historical spirit. But, more than 
anyone, he comprehended the Scripture in the hght of its 
moral and spiritual purpose. The religious life of Jesus was 
not based on a coldly rational process; but moving on the 
sure ground of genius, he saw that the world would never 
be converted to the God of the Bible unless that God were 
made real and vivid in a new way. So Jesus did something 
that none of the prophets ever thought of doing. He made 
himself "one" with the Redeeming God of the Hebrews, work- 
ing out in his own life the divine drama of salvation, and 
calling upon others to follow his example. "Logicians may 
reason about abstractions," writes the historian Macaulay, 
"but the great mass of men must have images." That is to 
say, they unconsciously demand something that strikes upon 
their imagination: 

God, the uncreated, the incomprehensible, the invisible, attracted 
few worshipers. A philosopher might admire so noble a conception: 
but the crowd turned away in disgust from words which presented no 
image to their minds. It was before Deity embodied in a human form, 
walking among men, partaking of their infirmities, leaning on their 
bosoms, weeping over their graves, slumbering in the manger, bleeding 
on the cross, that the prejudices of the Synagogue, the doubts of the 



236 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

Academy, the pride of the Portico, the fasces of the Lictor, and the 
swords of thirty legions, were humbled in the dust.' 

Where the great prophets expressed the divine character 
in divers ways, Jesus was the "image" of the Redeeming 
God (Heb. 1:1-3; cf. I Cor. 1:30; II Cor. 4:4). He was the 
embodiment, or "incarnation," of the God of the Bible. In 
him was condensed the entire process of spiritual evolution 
represented by the Old Testament. While men have differed 
about the "incarnation" as a matter of theology, or meta- 
physics, it has worked steadily onward in human history, 
whether it has been understood or not. Jesus did something 
new — something peculiar to himself. Before his time, the 
Bible idea of God was not a living reality in the world at large. 
Heathenism was practically supreme. The gentiles were 
ignorant of Bible religion; and that religion was kept alive 
among the Jews chiefly by the momentum of their "group- 
interests." We know, of course, that much genuine faith and 
piety existed among the Jews; but this faith was not calculated 
to be the rallying-point for a triumphant religious campaign 
throughout the earth. Modern people have a tendency to 
imagine that God seemed the same before the Christian era 
that he does now, and that the world "before Christ" looked 
the same as it looks now; but this is a mistake. For just as 
the world assumes a new character in the eyes of the lover; 
just as life appears different when viewed from the standpoint 
of some great success; in the same way, God and the world 
look different in Christian civilization than they did in ^re- 
Christian times. The spiritual atmosphere of Christendom 
is created by Jesus.^ 

Christianity will always be hard for the rationalist to define 
because it is primarily "personal." — If we approach Christianity 
in search of some distinctive theology, or philosophy, we 

' Macaulay, Essay on Milton, par. 38. Italics ours. 

^The name "Jesus" is a Hellenized form of the Hebrew Joshua, meaning "Yah- 
weh is salvation." This was a well-known Hebrew name. 



THE WORK OF JESUS 237 

miss its meaning as a fresh, original fact in social evolution. 
The difficulty of explaining it from the rational standpoint, 
as a collection of doctrines, has prompted the somewhat mis- 
leading statement that, after all, Christianity is not a doctrine 
but a "life." As a fact in the history of the world, it is neither 
a "life" nor a "doctrine" : It is partnership with God, through 
Jesus, in the redemption of the world. It is Jesus making 
the God of the Bible a reality to mankind. Christianity, 
then, is first of all a "personal" experience; and it is hard to 
define just because it has this inner, subjective, psychological 
character. It means the projection into gentile society of the 
spiritual evolution that went on among the Hebrews. It 
means the appropriation of the Redeeming God of Israel by 
the non- Jewish world. Christianity, of course, has its doc- 
trinal, theological aspect; but this is not Christianity as a 
dynamic fact of history. Sociology, therefore, is concerned 
with Christianity, not from the doctrinal point of view, but as 
a movement linking the history of Israel to the history of 
the world. 

Jesus identified "knowledge of God" with doing the divine 
wiU.— In the New Testament, the word for "knowledge" is not 
used merely in the sense of rational, or intellectual, apprehen- 
sion. It has also the Old Testament, prophetic sense of 
"conduct." The prophet Jeremiah, for instance, asks, "Did 
not thy father .... do ww/^/>a^ and righteousness ?— Was not 
this to know me ? saith Yahweh" (Jer. 22 : 15-16). Jesus not 
only criticized conduct, as the prophets did; but he also went 
about "doing good" (Matt. 4:23; Acts 10:38). He empha- 
sized the "doing" of good (Mark 3:4). He showed forth 
"good works" from God (John 10:32). So Paul agonizes 
to "do" good, and is only able to do it "through Jesus" (Rom. 
7:15-25). And so the author of the First Epistle of John 
writes, "Hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his 
commandments" (I John 2:3). 



238 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

Thus, the old Hebrew Bible and the New Testament ring 
true to the same fundamental theme. The more ancient 
Scripture says, "Let the wicked forsake his way [i.e., his 
doings\ and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him 
return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him, and 
to our God, for he will abundantly pardon" (Isa. 55:7). The 
central thought of this passage is taken up into the New 
Testament, and worked into the immortal parable of the 
Prodigal. The erring son goes into a far country and leads 
a bad life. But finally the wicked forsakes his evil doings and 
resolves to do better. So he returns to his father and is 
forgiven. There is no suggestion in the Bible religion that 
acceptance at the hands of God is conditioned upon some 
abstruse belief about matters that are unprovable in the nature 
of the case. Neither in the Old Testament nor the New is 
there any call made upon men to profess a theological system 
in order to find peace with God. On the contrary, in every 
nation, he that feareth him and worketh righteousness, is 
acceptable to him (Acts 10:35).' 

^The interesting problem of the relation between the "man Jesus" and the 
official Christ of the church is one that falls within the scope of history proper. 
The conclusions drawn in the text are independent of the consideration that the official 
Christ may be in part the creation of Paul and other interpreters. Also, the discus- 
sion whether Jesus was or was not the Messiah predicted by the Old Testament has 
only a minor sociological interest. The empirical fact is, that the religion of the 
Bible spreads abroad in the world "through Jesus" in the form of "Christianity," 
and that it is propagated in no other way. Science reckons only with facts and 
relations between facts. From the practical standpoint, Jesus is the only "Messiah" 
that the world can ever know, because the work done by him, and in his name by his 
followers, cannot now be done by anybody else. Through the messianic idea, Jesus 
was connected with his own times and his own people; but his claim to be the 
Messiah does not rank with his claim to be "one" with God. The latter idea has 
been taken up instinctively by the New Testament writers and by the universal 
church, and stated as the doctrine of the incarnation; while messianism remains in 
the background of Christian thought. The emphasis of the church upon the doctrine 
of the incarnation testifies to the significance of Jesus as the factor about which the 
religion of the Bible takes a new start. The messianic idea stands for the local and 
the temporary in Jesus; while the incarnation idea stands for the universal and the 
timeless. 



CHAPTER XXVI 
CHRISTIANITY AND THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 

. The Christian movement was not a campaign for "social reform" 
in the modern, scientific sense. — We have already seen that 
the Old Testament prophets were not socialists, and that the 
modern movements of radicalism can claim no sanction from 
the Hebrew Scriptures {supra, pp. 160-64). Precisely the same 
truth holds with reference to the New Testament. Scientific 
study of the Gospels, the Epistles and other parts of the 
New Testament brings out the affinity of Jesus and his 
followers with the Hebrew prophets, and shows that the 
Christian movement was not a campaign for social reform in 
the modern sense of the term. It is not as a revolutionary 
and radical movement that Christianity comes before the 
sociologist. It is perfectly true that Jesus and his followers 
labored in the presence of the social problem. So did the Hebrew 
prophets. This is clear to the sociological investigator of the 
problem. But it is equally clear that the New Testament has 
no "social" outlook in the scientific sense of the term. It is 
an appeal to the individual; and it proceeds upon the assunip- 
tion that when all individuals do right, the world will be 
reformed. No other standpoint would have been possible 
in that age. Only in modern times, through much pain and 
labor, has it begun to be possible for men to learn that redemp- 
tion is both subjective, or individual, and objective, or insti- 
tutional. This insight was not open to the minds through 
which the religion of the Bible came into being; and it would 
have been of little use in ancient times. Christianity is not 
a program of political and economic reform, but an inspiration 
to personal and social righteousness. 

239 



240 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

Christianity attracted the lower classes at first more 
than the upper classes. — Christianity arose in the midst of 
a civilization in which the social problem was pressing hard 
for solution. All social classes, upper and lower, felt the need 
for salvation in one way or another. But in the Roman 
empire, as everywhere, the conditions of life pressed more 
heavily upon the humble classes than upon their masters; 
and the peculiar nature of Christianity was such as to attract 
the lower and middle classes at first in larger proportion than 
the upper class. 

No straining of words, no figurative interpretation, can 
change the evidence of the Gospels in regard to the attitude 
of Jesus toward rich and poor (Luke 6 : 20, 24, 25 ; Luke 18 : 24, 
25). He opposed the wealthy scribes and Pharisees in the 
spirit of Hebrew prophecy, declaring that they were the succes- 
sors of those that slew the prophets (Matt. 23:13-38; Luke 
20:46, 47). Our concern here is not with his "teaching about 
wealth," but with his attitude toward the upper and lower 
classes. His disciples were mostly humble folk. It appears that 
the "common people," or the "multitude," heard Jesus gladly 
(Mark 12:37). It is reported that certain of the Pharisees 
asked whether any of the "rulers" had believed on him, inti- 
mating at the same time that he was followed only by the 
multitude (John 7:48, 49). The chief priests and scribes and 
leading citizens were for a time held back from destroying 
him by fear of the "people" (Luke 19:47, 48; cf. Luke 20: 19). 
While he found a few sympathizers among the well-to-do, 
the upper class on the whole was hostile to him. When Chris- 
tianity began to spread abroad in the gentile world, as a 
consequence of Paul's preaching, the same class distribution is 
to be observed at first. Writing to his converts at the city 
of Corinth, Paul reminds them that not many wise after the 
flesh, not many mighty, not many noble were to be found 
among them (I Cor. 1:26; 7:21). As McGiffert observes, 



CHRISTIANITY AND THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 241 

the Christian victims of the persecution under Nero must 
have been from the lowest classes, or the emperor would not 
have dared treat them as he did.' The Christian church at 
first, then, was "largely composed of slaves and low people.'" 
In the early church, as Harnack writes, "the lower classes, 
slaves, freedmen, and laborers, very largely predominated. 
Celsus and Caecilius distinctly assert this, and the apologists 
admit the fact. Even the officials of the Christian church 
frequently belonged to the lowest class. "^ 

But while Christianity began its history in the lower social 
strata, there is a noticeable change in the composition of the 
church, even during the New Testament period. This fact 
will occupy us in the following chapter. 

' McGiffert, History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age (New York, 1900), 
p. 629; cf. p. 267. Cf. Orr, Early Progress of Christianity (New York, 1899), chap. ii. 

' Rainy, The Ancient Catholic Church (New York, 1902), p. 10. 

3 Harnack, Christianity in the First Three Centuries (London, 1908), Vol. II, 
pp. 33, 34. Cf. Dobschutz, Christian Life in the Primitive Church (London, 1904), 
p. 303. The question of the actual relation between Jesus and the upper classes of 
his day is here taken up without reference to what Jesus may or may not have said 
on the abstract subject of wealth. The evidence indicates a state of sharp tension 
between Jesus and the upper classes of his own times. We agree with the position 
taken in the following works on the relation of Jesus to the social classes: Mathews, 
The Social Teaching of Jesus, (New York, 1902), pp. 136 f. and i7of.; Cone, Rich and 
Poor in the New Testament (New York, 1902), passim; Rauschenbusch, Christianity 
and the Social Crisis (New York, 1907), pp. 74-92. But we dissent from Peabody, 
Jesus Christ and the Social Question (New York, 1900), pp. 183-225. 



X 
CHAPTER XXVII 
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 

Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, did not continue the emphasis 
upon class-relations between rich and poor. — When we leave the 
Gospels, and enter the Pauline Epistles, a change of atmosphere 
is at once evident. Paul was laboring to advance the religion 
of the Bible in the world at large, among all nationalities. In 
order to achieve this end, it was absolutely impossible for his 
ministry to take the same form as did the ministry of Jesus. 
This is clear. Jesus was the first person in human history to 
embody the idea of the Redeeming God of Israel in a human 
life. He was thus an example, or pattern, to be followed by 
others. In order to extend the religion of the Bible on the lines 
laid down by Jesus, it is necessary first of all to explain the 
person and work of Jesus — ^in short, to "preach Christ." 
Now, Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, was the first person to 
preach Christ to those who were "alienated from the common- 
wealth of Israel"; and, in his way, he was just as important to 
the spread of Bible religion as Jesus himself. Jesus, of course, 
did not have to preach in the way that Paul did. For while 
Jesus declared the gospel of God in his own life, Paul could 
preach that gospel only by first preaching Christ. Paul had to 
create enthusiasm for Jesus among the gentiles ; he had to labor 
until Christ was "formed" in them. This is the fundamental 
ground of difference between the Gospels and the Epistles. 

The contrast which thus emerges between the preaching of 
Paul and that of Jesus brings with it important consequences 
for the sociological study of the Bible : If Paul were to do his 
work among the gentiles, he could not go about opposing the 
rich and favoring the poor, as Jesus did. Paul's object was to 
create Christ in the hearts of men, and then let the spirit of 

242 



THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 243 

Jesus do its work. If Paul had raised the question of rich 
and poor in the way his Master did, he would have met the 
fate of Jesus; and the dissemination of the gospel would have 
come to an end. It is not likely that all these aspects of the 
situation were clearly present in the mind of Paul; but they 
are nevertheless the considerations that governed the spread 
of Bible religion. Paul acted in the Hne of least resistance; 
and his course was guided by the instinct of genius. 

Paul interpreted the gospel as a message for all men, and the 
church as a home for all social classes. — Paul took the standpoint 
that a religion which proclaimed "the brotherhood of man" 
must open the door of the church to rich and poor alike. All 
who received Christ could come in, Jew and Greek, barbarian 
and Scythian, bond and free, male and female: all were one 
"body" in Christ (I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11). 
This doctrine had important consequences which Paul did 
not foresee. 

As we have already observed, Christianity appealed at the 
start to the humbler social classes, rather than to the mighty. 
The apostolic church evidently drew a large part of its mem- 
bership from the slaves and the poor freemen with which 
the Roman empire abounded. Various passages testify to 
the anxiety with which Paul and other New Testament writers 
endeavored to keep Christian slaves in order. In one place 
we read: " Slaves, be obedient unto them that according to the 
flesh are your lords, .... knowing that whatsoever good thing 
each one doeth, the same shall he receive again from the Lord, 
whether he be a slave or a freeman" (Eph. 6 : 5, 8).^ In other 

'The King James Bible uses the word "servant" for the term here given as 
"slave." On the other hand, as the scholars who produced the Revised Bible say 
in the "margin," the word which their seventeenth-century predecessors translated 
"servant" is more accurately rendered "bondservant." It is clear that the passage 
here quoted should commence with such a term in order to agree with its conclusion, 
which even the King James translators could not avoid rendering "bond or free 
AUowance ought perhaps to be made in their favor, in view of the fact that the word 
"servant" carried a lower social implication in the seventeenth century than it docs 
now; but there is no excuse for using their translation at the present time. 



244 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

passages we read: "Slaves, obey in all things them that are 
your lords according to the flesh" (Col. 3 : 22). "Let as many 
as are slaves under the yoke count their own masters worthy 
of all honor" (I Tim. 6:1). "Exhort slaves to be in sub- 
jection to their own masters, and to be well pleasing in all 
things, not gainsaying, not purloining, but showing all good 
fidelity" (Titus 2:9). In the Epistle to Philemon, we see 
Paul sending a fugitive Christian slave back to his owner, 
saying that he thought the slave had wronged his master by 
running away. Another testimony to the presence of the 
poor in the early church is found in the anxiety for collections 
of money, to relieve them. Paul says that at the end of the 
famous "Jerusalem Conference," the apostles Peter, James, 
and John gave him the hand of fellowship, that Paul should 
go to the gentiles and they to the Jews, adding "only they 
would that we should remember the poor, which very thing I 
was also zealous to do" (Gal. 2:10). The collections taken 
were not to be used for the poor in general, outside the church, 
but for them that were of "the household of faith." 

But while the church consisted at first mainly of poor free- 
men and slaves, it included a growing proportion of more 
fortunate people — wealthy slaveholders and landown^ers. The 
master Philemon, to whom Paul sent back the runaway slave, 
was a beloved fellow-worker in the gospel, and a member of a 
church that met in his own house. The little churches that 
met in private residences welcomed into their brotherhood per- 
sons like Philemon, who contributed from their wealth to the 
needs of the new religious movement. A number of passages 
in the New Testament bear witness to the increase of wealthy 
members in the church. Christian slaveholders, like Phile- 
mon, are spoken of when Christian slaves are exhorted not 
to despise "believing masters" (I Tim. 6:2). Christian mas- 
ters are commanded to treat their slaves well (Eph. 6:9). In 
one passage we read: "Lords, render unto your slaves that 



THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 245 

which is just and equal" (Col. 4:1). Thus it is clear that 
the upper classes began to join the church in growing numbers. 
Before the close of the first century, one of the writers of the 
New Testament thought it well to sound a note of warning 
against the favor shown by the church to the wealthy. His 
writing has come down to us under the title the General 
Epistle of James; and it was issued late in the century, perhaps 
about 90 A.D.' His words on the subject of social classes are 
as follows: 

My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ .... with 
respect of persons. For if there come into your assembly a man with a 
gold ring, in fine clothing, and there come in also a poor man in vile 
clothing; and ye have regard to him that weareth the fine clothing, and 
say. Sit thou here in a good place; and ye say to the poor man, stand thou 
there, or sit under my footstool; are ye not divided among yourselves, 
and become judges with evil thoughts ? Hearken, my beloved brethren; 
did not God choose them that are poor as to the world to be rich in faith, 
and heirs of the kingdom which he promised to them that love him? 
But ye have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you, 
and themselves drag you before the judgment-seats? (Jas. 2:1-6). 

But while the tendency thus indicated began to be noticed 
even in the first century, we learn from the writings of the 
church Fathers that even in the second century the church 
continued to be, in the main, a lower-class institution.^ The 
apologetic, or defensive, Christian writers of the second century 
endeavored to attract the upper classes, who possessed wealth 
and culture.^ 

The third century marked the steadily decreasing influence 
of the lower class in church life, and a corresponding growth 
of aristocratic tendencies in the Christian fold. The rich 
increased their offerings, and began to leave property to the 
church by will. Gifts and legacies at first assumed the form 

'Bacon, Introduction to the New Testament (New York, 1902), p. 165. 
' Fisher, History of Christian Doctrine (New York, 1899), p. 52. 
3 Rainy, The Ancient Catholic Church (New York, 1902), p. 90. 



246 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

of money and other kinds of movable wealth; but more and 
more the possessions of the church included property in land. 
Conditions in the third century are indicated by Gibbon as 
follows : 

Before the close of the third century, many considerable estates were 
bestowed on the opulent churches of Rome, Milan, Carthage, Antioch, 
Alexandria, and the other great cities of Italy and the provinces.^ 

A new rehgious institution is thus growing up and changing 
its form as we follow it onward in history. An interesting 
evidence of the spread of Christianity through the upper 
class at the beginning of the fourth century is found in certain 
resolutions adopted by the "Synod of Elvira," which was held 
about the year 305. It was declared that the Christian 
landlord ought not to permit his pagan tenants to pay rents 
in flesh and vegetables if these things had been previously 
offered to idols; and that the Christian master ought not to 
permit pagan slaves to keep idols on his property.^ In regard 
to the same period, Hallam writes : 

It was among the first effects of the conversion of [the emperor] 
Constantine to give not only a security but a legal sanction to the 
territorial acquisitions of the church. The edict of Milan, in 313, recog- 
nizes the actual estates of the ecclesiastical corporations. Another, 
pubUshed in 321, grants to all the subjects of the empire the power of 
bequeathing their property to the church. His own hberality and that 
of his successors set an example which did not want imitators.^ 

It is clear that between the time of Paul and the fourth 
century a mighty change took place in the institution which we 
call "the Christian church." — In the days of the apostle to 
the gentiles, the church consisted of small bodies of obscure 

^ Gibbon, Decline of the Roman Empire (New York, Harper, 1900), chap, xv, 
p. 134- 

2 Hefele, History of the Church Councils (Edinburgh, 1883), Vol. I, pp. 154, 424-26; 
Vol. II, pp. 186, 301, 306; Vol. Ill, p. 169. 

3 Hallam, Europe in the Middle Ages, chap. vii. Cf. Milman, History of Latin 
Christianity (New York, 1889), Vol. I, pp. 507-11, 536; Rainy, The Ancient Catholic 
Church, p. 278. 



THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 247 

people, with no comprehensive organization throughout the 
empire, and no regularly appointed leaders. Christianity 
was a forbidden cult; while the recognized state-religion 
was pagan. But in the fourth century we find the church 
with wholly changed fortunes. It is now a state institution, 
rapidly driving out paganism. Its membership is drawn from 
upper and lower classes alike. It is divided sharply into 
laity and clergy. Its higher officers, holding great estates 
of landed and movable property in trust, are assimilated with 
the secular upper class. In short, the primitive groups of 
Christians were transformed into a powerful social machine — 
the Catholic church of the Roman empire. 



CHAPTER XXVIII 
CATHOLICISM REJECTS THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 

The Catholic church responded to the same social forces that 
shaped the organization of the Jewish church. — In the fifth cen- 
tury, the priesthood was generally supported from church 
funds. "" By the sheer social momentum which it had acquired, 
Christianity was now the religion of the multitude. Pagan- 
ism was outlawed; and the new faith was no longer a matter 
of personal volition.^ Ritualism gained an importance com- 
parable to the weight of ceremonial practices under the old 
Mosaic Law. 

Side by side with the development of the organization of the Church 
[says Adeney] there went on the increasing elaboration of its rites and 

ceremonies There was a growing approximation to pagan ritual 

in the ceremonials of the Church and the feelings of awe with which they 
were approached.^ 

Christianity, indeed, had slipped into the place of the old 
heathenism. 

The tide of easy-going converts swelled the churches [writes Rainy]. 
A man's Christianity passed unchallenged if, having once been baptized, 
perhaps in infancy, he maintained a negative goodness, joined with 
some attention to ordinances.^ 

Formal theology underwent a marked evolution; and 
Christianity became identified in the eyes of most people, not 
only with the observance of rites and ceremonies, but with 
acceptance of certain metaphysical beliefs about the person 
of Jesus, upon which neither Jesus nor Paid had insisted as a 
condition of salvation. All these things, then, grew up 
together — organization, ritualism, dogma, and wealth. 

^ Rainy, op. cit., p. 514. ^ Rainy, op. cit., p. 520. 

3 Adeney, The Greek and Eastern Churches (New York, 1908), pp. 141, 142. 

■• Rainy, op. cit., p. 300. 

248 



CATHOLICISM REJECTS THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 249 

In terms of Old Testament evolution, the Catholic church 
became tinctured with "Amoritism."— Again we stand before the 
great paradox which has vexed religious thinkers for thousands 
of years. Sociology takes no sides. Being a purely scientific 
discipline, it observes the facts of social history in an impartial 
way. We have seen that social institutions are swayed by 
contrary forces. The movement known as Christianity origi- 
nated in view of the social problem, and partly as a protest 
against that problem.. Jesus emphasized the question of 
rich and poor in the same way that the earlier prophets did. 
But like the prophets, he attacked the social problem from the 
standpoint of individual sin, without putting forward a pro- 
gram of social readjustment. In Paul's campaign, the pro- 
phetic emphasis retired into the background; and in time the 
church came under control of the wealthy. 

This disposition of ecclesiastical affairs brought evil ten- 
dencies with it, of course. But the result was inevitable, in 
view of the character of ancient society. The world in which 
the church arose was a pagan world, following many gods, and 
pursuing all kinds of superstition. Society was divided sharply 
into upper and lower classes. The superior class based itself 
upon property in human flesh and property in land. The 
church had no program for the adjustment of these relation- 
ships. Hence, it either had to die, or accommodate itself 
to ancient civilization. Although the church became pagan- 
ized, it abolished the worship of many gods, and concentrated 
the minds of men upon the One God of the Bible. It spread 
abroad the idea of charity and brotherhood; and as the 
Roman empire declined, the Catholic church gathered up the 
elements of ancient civilization, and became the tutor of the 
barbarian races that founded the modern world. 

Monasticism arose in protest against ecclesiastical worldliness, 
and then became institutionalized itself.— The accommodation 
of the church to society was resented by many Christians, 



250 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

who retired into country places to live a "holy" life. These 
persons, however, could not resist the social impulse. They 
organized into groups of monks and nuns; and the church 
adopted monasticism as one branch of its work. The monks 
were of great assistance to the church in teaching the barba- 
rians. They became a part of the upper social class; and the 
monastic societies acquired property in lands and serf -slaves. 

The completion of the Bible was incidental to the development 
of the Catholic church. — We saw that the Old Testament was 
completed under the post-exilic Judaism. By a similar process, 
the New Testament was completed under Catholicism, and 
then added to the Hebrew Scriptures, thus producing the 
Christian Bible. It is impossible to date this process exactly; 
and the matter of chronology need not be discussed in the 
present connection. The first Christians emphasized, not 
the Bible, but the "religion of Christ." Christianity began 
to spread abroad in the world before the New Testament was 
written. It is difficult for the matter-of-fact modern mind to 
reproduce the ancient situation. The various "Epistles" 
and "Gospels" came into existence as the church developed. 
When Paul wrote his letters to the churches, the Gospels were 
not yet compiled. When the New Testament was at last 
completed, the Bible as a whole existed only in hand-written 
copies. There were no printed books. The manuscripts of 
the Bible were copied and multipHed only by great labor. 
Hence a Bible was very costly; and so the actual possession 
of the Scriptures was confined to a relatively few persons in 
the upper class. The Cathohc church has often been denounced 
by Protestants for "holding the Bible from the people"; 
but historical conditions in ancient and mediaeval times make 
it clear that this judgment is largely unjust. 

Catholicism, like Judaism before it, unconsciously rejected the 
social problem. — The foregoing study has made it evident that 
when Christianity assumed the institutional form, the resulting 



CATHOLICISM REJECTS THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 251 

organization could not continue the emphasis of Jesus upon 
the social problem of rich and poor. CathoUcism, like Juda- 
ism, unconsciously rejected the social problem. The same 
principles apply in both cases. The CathoUc church, like 
the Jewish church, became an aristocratic institution; and 
only in this form could it have passed over to the barbarians. 



CHAPTER XXIX 
THE CONVERSION OF THE BARBARIANS 

Western civilization, like the classic and oriental civilizations, 
began on the level of nomadic barbarism. — The barbarians of 
Europe moved about in kinship groups under the rule of clan 
chiefs. As numbers increased, the various clans and tribes 
waged v^ar in a deadly struggle to control the physical resources 
of the world. The effect of war upon social evolution was to 
bring competitive groups together into larger groups. When 
the curtain rose on the history of Europe, the barbarians con- 
sisted of numerous hostile communities, which were passing 
out of the stage of nomadism, and settling here and there upon 
the soil. These communities, like their predecessors in the 
great historic civilizations, were stratified into classes; the 
upper class being free, the lower being in bondage. 

The barbarians resembled the ancient civilized peoples 
not only in their social machinery, but in rehgion as well. 
They' emerged upon the field of history on a pagan basis. 
Their beliefs and practices resembled those of other heathen 
peoples. It is impressive to observe how human nature and 
human society obey the same forces in all parts of the world. 
Among the barbarians in the forests of Germany, as among the 
Romans, the Greeks, and the Semites, religion lay within the 
circle of thought and activity that made up the round of daily, 
secular life. Each clan, or social organization, had its own 
god or gods; and religion was a bond holding groups together. 

Among the barbarians, Christianity spread from above down- 
ward; whereas, in the Roman empire, it spread from below 
upward. — From the sociological standpoint, the conversion of 
the barbarians to Christianity was precisely opposite to that 
of Roman civilization. The upper classes in France, England, 

252 



THE CONVERSION OF THE BARBARIANS 253 

Germany, and other countries were converted by Catholic 
missionaries; and then the rehgion of the chiefs became the 
rehgion of all. The Roman church appealed to the barbarians 
as the heir of a great empire which had long held sway over 
the world. The new peoples of the West were not converted 
in the sense in which we now understand that word; and it is 
more exact to say that they were converted to the church 
rather than to Christianity. The conquest of barbarian pagan- 
ism by the religion of the Bible was at first the displacement 
of old state-religions by a new state-religion. The God of the 
Bible, represented by the figure of Jesus (which had now 
acquired the "religious value" of God), was accepted by the 
new peoples of Europe almost on the basis of the paganism 
which they abandoned. The heathen gods were displaced by 
the Roman Catholic system, w4th God the Father at the head, 
and in connection with him the Son, the Holy Spirit, the 
Virgin Mary, and a host of saints. The new religion was 
accepted uncritically. The chiefs no doubt saw something 
better in it than in the old heathenism; and the masses pro- 
fessed it because their leaders did. In regard to the conver- 
sion of the Germans we read the following: 

Clovis was more than a conqueror, he was also a far-seeing states- 
man; no wiser political move was ever made than when, in 496 a.d., 

he determined to become a Christian The conversion took place 

publicly and with dramatic effect. The king had registered a vow that, 
should he prove successful in the battle of Tolbiacum against the AUe- 
mani, he would yield to the entreaties of his Burgundian wife and accept 
her God. After the battle, with a number of his followers, he received 

baptism Old heathen rites continued to be performed under 

the guise of Christian ceremonial; and saints' images, like idols, were 
carried round as a protection against fire, illness, and death. It was a 
change of name, but not of substance; Siegfried's dragon became the 
dragon of St. George, while the virtues of the old goddesses were trans- 
ferred to the Virgin Mary.^ 

' Henderson, History of Germany (New York, 1908), pp. 14, i5- 



254 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

The conversion of the early EngHsh people took place 
under practically the same social conditions: 

Eadwine promised to become Christian if he returned successful 
from Wessex; and the wise men of Northumbria gathered to deliberate 
on the new faith to which he bowed. To finer minds, its charm lay 
then as now in the light it threw on the darkness which encompassed 

men's lives Coarser argument told on the crowd. ''None of 

your people, Eadwine, have worshiped the gods more busily than I," 
said Coifi, the priest, "yet there are many more favored and more for- 
tunate. Were these gods good for anything they would help their 
worshipers." Then leaping on horseback, he hurled his spear into 
the sacred temple at Godmanham, and with the rest of the Witan em- 
braced the rehgion of the king. But the faith of Woden and Thunder 

was not to fall without a struggle Mercia, which had as yet 

owned the supremacy of Northumbria, sprang into a sudden greatness 
as the champion of the heathen gods. Its King, Penda, saw in the 
rally of the old religion a chance of winning back his people's freedom 

and giving it the lead among the tribes around it In 655 he met 

Oswiu in the field of Winwed by Leeds Victory at last declared 

for the faith of Christ. Penda himself fell on the field. The river over 
which the Mercians fled was swollen with a great rain; it swept away 
the fragments of the heathen host, and the cause of the older gods was 
lost forever.^ 

These examples of the spread of Bible religion in Europe 
could be multiplied indefinitely. Another passage relating to 
England is of profit in this connection: 

The first missionaries to the Englishmen, strangers in a heathen land, 
attached themselves necessarily to the courts of the kings, who were 
their earliest converts, and whose conversion was generally followed by 
that of their people. The EngUsh bishops were thus at first royal 
chaplains, and their diocese was naturally nothing but the kingdom. 
In this way realms which are all but forgotten are commemorated in 
the limits of existing sees. That of Rochester represented till of late 
an obscure kingdom of West Kent, and the frontier of the original 
kingdom of Mercia may be recovered by following the map of the 
ancient bishopric of Lichfield.^ 

' Green, History of the English People, Book I, chap. ii. 
^ Green, op. cit., Book I, chap. ii. 



CHAPTER XXX 

CATHOLICISM AS EXTERNAL AUTHORITY 

The authoritative organization of ancient and mediaeval society 
went along with an authoritative theology.— In view of the facts 
already considered, it is easy to see that under the Catholic 
church the religion of the Bible was interpreted as a matter 
of external authority. This religion was thought to have been 
handed down from heaven by the Deity, in a miraculous and 
purely supernatural way. The only form in which men could 
understand the Christian religion was that of an "establish- 
ment" ordained by God in the same way that kings issued their 
decrees. If some hardy inquirer had possessed the curiosity 
to ask a church Father, or a mediaeval churchman, why 
the law went forth from Israel and the word of the Lord from 
Jerusalem, he would have encountered amazement that such 
a query should even be raised, and then he would have been 
crushed with the reply that the word of the Lord went forth 
from Israel just because God willed it so. But such questions 
were not raised. The human mind was docile; and people 
easily took things for granted. 

The church conformed itself to the principle of external 
authority when it made terms with the upper class. Theology 
went hand in hand with sociology. It is not that there was 
any deliberate or conscious adjustment of theological doc- 
trine to the social situation. The church did not say, "We 
have the principle of authority in social organization; and 
therefore we must have it in our theology." Matters never 
work out that way. The fact is that the principle of authority 
reigned over all departments of life; and so it found expression 
in theology without conscious effort on the part of anybody. 
From the conventional historical standpoint, the principle of 

255 



2S6 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

authority may of course be viewed as an inheritance from 
Judaism; for the rehgion of the Bible had been taught in 
this way by the Jewish church before the time of Christ (chap, 
xxii, p. 213). But under Judaism and Christianity ahke, the 
dogma of theological authority has been supported and vital- 
ized by the authoritative organization of society, in which 
the many have been subordinate to the few. 

The greatest name in Christian theology, as thus viewed, 
is undoubtedly that of Augustine, a citizen of the Roman 
empire in the fourth and fifth centuries (354-430 a.d.). This 
theologian "submitted himself absolutely to the tradition of 
the Church," and "he established more securely in the West 
the ancient ecclesiastical tradition as authority and law."^ 
He was the master of the Middle Ages in theology. "The 
history of piety and of dogmas in the West was so thoroughly 
dominated by Augustine from the beginning of the fifth 
century to the era of the Reformation, that we must take this 
whole time as forming one period."^ Thus, the idea of religion 
as a matter of external authority continued to be the prevail- 
ing doctrine throughout the Middle Ages; and it survives 
in many minds up to the present time. According to this 
view, the religion of the Bible took its origin from a revelation 
external to the mind of man. The inspired mind was an instru- 
ment by which the Bible-idea of God came into the world; 
such a mind was a channel through which common folk 
received their instruction in religious matters. On this view, 
the men who wrote the Bible took the part of spirit mediums, 
acting as intermediaries between heaven and earth, trans- 
mitting messages from God to man. From the standpoint 
of this conception, there can be, of course, no problem of 
religion and hence no problem of the Bible. This theory con- 

"Harnack, History of Dogma (Boston, 1899), Vol. V, p. 5 (italics ours). 

= Harnack, op. cit., p. 3. This does not exhaust the significance of Augustine as 
a thinker; but the other aspects of his work do not call for mention here. 



CATHOLICISM AS EXTERNAL AUTHORITY 257 

templates the religion of the Bible as an ordinance promulgated 
by the Almighty; and it regards the Bible as dictated by God, 
and hence "infallible." A mantle of mystery was thrown 
around this entire subject all through the Middle Ages: 

During this vast period one type of exegesis is found throughout the 

Church In the mediaeval period of the Church, as in the Tal- 

mudic period of the Synagogue, an orthodox theology, resting on tra- 
dition which was interpreted and backed by ecclesiastical authority, 
discountenanced or anathematized independent investigation of Scrip- 
ture.^ 

The general position of the mediaeval church is well stated 
in the following words : 

As the sole legatee of the Roman Empire, the Church is the pre- 
dominant power of the Middle Ages. Outside of the Church there can 
be no salvation and no science. The dogmas formulated by her repre- 
sent the truth. Hence, the problem is no longer to search for it. The 
Church has no place for philosophy, if we mean by philosophy the pur- 
suit of truth. From the mediaeval point of view, to philosophize 
means to explain the dogma, to deduce its consequences, and to 
demonstrate its truth. Hence, philosophy is identical with positive 

theology The mediaeval Church is both church and school, the 

depositary of the means of salvation and the dispenser of profane instruc- 
tion. As long as the people continued in a state of barbarism, the 
power which she exercised in this double capacity was beneficent, 
legitimate, and necessary.^ 

' Gilbert, History of the Interpretation of the Bible (New York, 1908), pp. 146, 179. 

* Weber, History of Philosophy (New York, 1904), pp. 201, 202, 275. 



CHAPTER XXXI 

JUSTIFICATION BY WORKS 

The mediaeval church was grounded on the doctrine of 
"justification by works." — The ruling tendency in reKgion 
during the Middle Ages can be deduced from the superior 
social position of the church. We have seen that the clergy- 
were part of the upper class, and that the church machine 
was part of the state. The church was therefore a cor- 
poration enjoying "special privileges." It had an economic 
advantage, or hold, whereby it could impose various kinds 
of taxes on the people. It accumulated large landed estates, 
and was therefore a landlord. It owned serf-slaves, and 
exploited their labor. It operated the ecclesiastical courts, 
which presided over many matters now coming within the 
purview of secular law. It charged fees for divine service. 
Since Church and State were united, membership in the church 
was an element of citizenship, and was therefore involuntary. 
A man was answerable to the ecclesiastical powers in regard 
to many things; and he came within the jurisdiction of the 
church whether he wanted to or not. 

In order to be justified in the sight of the church, a man must 
give the ecclesiastical authorities either labor, or money got 
by laboring. Otherwise he was not right with the church, 
and therefore not right mth God. The church, represented 
by its priesthood, was the intermediary between man and God. 
From the economic standpoint, therefore, the position of the 
mediaeval church may be described as that of "justification 
by works." This definition of the church and religion during 
the Middle Ages accords with the superior economic and legal 
place of the church in society at that time. Although this 
formulation had no place in the ofiicial theology and would 

258 



JUSTIFICATION BY WORKS 259 

have been denied by the clergy, it states the entire case from 
the economic point of view. 

To give this definition of mediaeval rehgion is neither to 
decry nor to commend the church. All historians and socio- 
logical investigators admit that the church included possibilities 
of good and evil. The situation took its course as a matter 
of historic necessity. Wherever men have advanced from 
savagery into civilization, they have passed through a system 
of sharply defined upper and lower classes; and rehgion has 
been a factor in political and state life. Christianity had to 
be estabhshed in the world through existing social institutions; 
else it would have perished. At the beginning of the Middle 
Ages, the church was a great civilizing force. At the close of 
that epoch, however, the more progressive part of society was 
in religious revolt; and the protest against "justification by 
works" was one of the factors leading out from the Middle 
Ages into modern times. 

In the concluding part of our study, we shall examine the 
Bible and its religion in the modern world. 



PART V 
THE BIBLE AND ITS RELIGION IN THE MODERN WORLD 



FOREWORD TO PART V 

In the closing division of the study, we examine the place 
of the Bible and its rehgion in the development of modem 
society. Once more the fact is emphasized that religious 
questions have had an intimate connection with secular 
history. The practical use of sociological Bible-study is 
indicated in this part of the investigation. 



263 



CHAPTER XXXII 

PROTESTANTISM AND THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 

There was at length a great social revolt against the mediaeval 
church. — ^The movement known as the "Reformation" can be 
treated as an incident in social and economic history. This 
is not to deny that Protestantism and the Reformation can be 
described in spiritual terms. We cannot understand history 
until human thoughts are viewed in relation to human life as 
a whole. Not long ago scholars were treating the Reformation 
as if it were chiefly a matter of ideas and opinion; and although 
recent investigators have corrected this mistake, the old idea 
survives in the popular mind, and appears in a great deal of 
current religious opinion. "Doubtless the social problem has 
waited longer than it ought for adequate formulation," writes 
Albion W. Small, "because many men have believed too 
implicitly with Plato that 'ideas make the world.' Such men 
have told the story of history as though it were a ghost-dance 
on a floor of clouds. They have tried to explain how spirits 
with indiscernible bodies have brought about the visible 
results. They would not admit that the facts of human 
association have been the work of flesh-and-blood men with 
their feet on the ground."^ The older view of the Reformation 
went along with reluctance about admitting that men have 
bodies as well as minds, and that they live on bread as well 
as upon ideas. The new view of this great religious movement 
is part of the modern scientific interpretation of history as a 
whole. It does not claim that men are only physical creatures, 
nor that they live on bread alone; but it combats the notion 
that history is a "ghost-dance on a floor of clouds," and it 

^American Journal of Sociology, Vol. V, p. 518. 

264 



Jill 



PROTESTANTISM AND THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 265 

tries to see material things in their true perspective as legitimate 
factors in human life. 

From the sociological standpoint, the Reformation was the 
revolt of the lower classes against the older nobihty. Going 
farther, and resolving it into terms of economics, the Reforma- 
tion was a protest against the special privileges of the medi- 
aeval Catholic church.' Religious questions were political and 
economic issues at that period because Church and State were 
united. Religion, as interpreted by Catholicism, was expensive. 
While the outlay of capital on the church had brought solid 
returns in mediaeval times, the investment yielded smaller 
and smaller interest as the centuries rolled on. There were 
mutterings of revolt in the Middle Ages. The storm had been 
long gathering when it came to a head at the opening of 
modern history, and burst with terrific violence. The more 
progressive part of western society shook off allegiance to the 
Catholic church and instituted the Protestant churches of 
Christendom. The head and center of the Reformation was 
in the rising merchant and manufacturing classes, which had 
been slowly differentiating throughout the Middle Ages; but 
these classes were aided by certain sections of the agricultural 
peasantry, on the one side, and on the other by certain kings 
and nobles who stood to profit by the dispossession of the 
church from its landed estates. In economic terms, the 
Reformation was a protest against expensive religion in favor 
of cheap rehgion. It opposed the doctrine of "justification 
by works," which cost labor and money; and it stood for the 
doctrine of "justification by faith," which cost nothing. The 
connection between Protestantism and the rise of commerce 

' It should be observed that the mediaeval Catholic church is not to be identified 
with the modern Catholic church. There is, of course, a historical continuity between 
the two; and the "official" position of that church is about the same now as in the 
Middle Ages. But the facts here pointed out with reference to the Catholic church 
at the time of the Reformation are not peculiar to the church. They are facts of 
human nature as displayed in that particular situation. 



266 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY QF THE BIBLE 

and manufacture has been pointed out by Professor Thorold 
Rogers, of Oxford University, as follows : 

It cannot be by accident that those parts of Europe which have been 
from time to time distinguished for manufacturing and commercial 
activity have also been .... hostile to the pretensions of the 
Church, and that they have, when possible, revolted from it. It was so 
in Toulouse, before the crusade of Simon de Montfort wasted the fairest 
part of France. It was so in Flanders and Holland, in the Baltic towns, 
in Scandinavia, and in the eastern parts of England. It was so in the 
most industrious and opulent parts of France in the sixteenth century. 

It was not indeed so in Italy It was not in human nature that it 

should willingly quarrel with the process by which it became opulent, 

though in the end it paid dearly for its advantages Nor again 

can it be by accident that those countries which have thrown off the 
yoke of the Roman see were and have been most distinguished for 
intellectual activity. The true literature of modern Europe is almost 
exclusively the work of those countries in which the Reformation was 
finally settled — of England, of Holland, of northern Germany.^ 

The beginnings of the Reformation movement in the Middle 
Ages. — The absorption of land by the church went steadily 
forward all over Europe during the Middle Ages. It had 
reached alarming proportions in England as early as the 
thirteenth century (i 200-1300). A number of statutes were 
promulgated at that time to check the abuse. We quote 
from the statute of 1279. The terms of the law, even as 
rendered in modern language, will sound strange to the lay 
reader; but the general sense wiU be clear: 

The king to his justices of the bench, Greeting. Where of late it was 
provided, that religious men should not enter into the fees of any without 
license and will of the chief lords, of whom such fees be holden immedi- 
ately; and notwithstanding such religious men have since entered as well 
into their own fees, as into the fees of other men, appropriating and 

^ Rogers, Six Centuries of Work and Wages (New York), p. 360. This author 
began his professional life as a Church of England clergyman. Later he became a 
professor of economics in Oxford; and his pioneering researches in English economic 
history earned for him the dislike of the Tory classes, and prevented his re-election to 
the chair of political economy at Oxford. 



PROTESTANTISM AND THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 267 

buying them, and sometimes receiving them of the gift of others, whereby 
the services [i.e., national taxes and labor] that are due of such fees, and 
which at the beginning were provided for defence of the realm, are 
wrongfully withdrawn . . . . , we therefore, to the profit of our realm, 
intending to provide convenient remedy, by the advice of our prelates, 
earls, barons, and other our subjects, being of our council, have pro- 
vided, estabhshed, and ordained, that no person, religious or other, 
whatsoever he be, presimae to buy or sell, or imder the color of gift or 
lease, or by reason of any other title, whatsoever it be, to receive of any 
man, or by any other craft or device to appropriate to himself any lands 
or tenements under pain of forfeiture of the same whereby such lands or 
tenements may any wise come into mortmain.^ 

The century following the passage of this famous law saw 
the birth and rise to eminence of John Wikliffe, who has been 
called the "Morning Star of the Reformation." Wikliffe was 
an English patriot, an author, and a priest of the Roman 
Catholic church. He had a reputation as one of the greatest 
scholars of his time. We introduce a passage from a book 
which he wrote in the fourteenth century. This quotation 
shows the economic views of a man who anticipated the 
Reformation by more than a century. We give some of his 
terms in more modern form : 

Secular lordships, which clergymen have full falsely, against God's 
law, and spend them so wickedly, should be given wisely by the king and 
wise lords to poor gentlemen, who would justly govern the people, and 
maintain the land against enemies; and then might our land be stronger 
by many thousand men of arms than it is now, without any new cost of 
lords, or taxation of the poor commons, [and] be discharged of great 
heavy rent, and wicked customs brought up by covetous clergy, and of 
many taxes and extortions, by which they be now cruelly pillaged and 
robbed.^ 

It should be emphasized that the economic aspect of 
Wikliffe's doctrine was first and foremost in his preaching. 

' Adams and Stephens, Select Documents of English Constitutional History (New 
York, 1908), p. 71. 

^ Arnold, Select English Works of John Wiklif (Oxford, 1869-1871), Vol. Ill, pp. 

216, 217. 



268 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

The history going on around him was no ghost-dance on a 
floor of clouds. One of the most careful students of English 
conditions in the time of Wikliffe is George Macaulay Trevel- 
yan, who writes that "his demand for disendowment [of the 
church] preceded his purely doctrinal heresies . . . . , while 
his attack on the whole organization and the most prominent 
doctrines of the Mediaeval Church is found in its fulness only 
in his later works."^ The great Wikliffe was not alone in his 
heresy. There was a strong party at his back; and the 
nation was divided. At this period, indeed, Europe was 
beginning to glow with the heat that broke into flame at the 
Reformation. Over in Bohemia the heresy of Wiklifle was 
propagated by John Hus, who was burned at the stake. ^ 
Wikliffe himself started an association of poor preachers, who 
traveled about the country disseminating his views. The 
early stirrings of revolt against the established religious order 
came to be known as the "Lollard" movement. Taking its 
rise in the fourteenth century, it was a factor of importance 
more than a hundred years; and it was the beginning of 
English Protestantism and Puritanism in later centuries. 
We quote again from Rogers : 

English Lollardy was, like its direct descendant Puritanism, sour 
and opinionative, but it was also moral and thrifty. They who 
denounced the lazy and luxurious life of the monks, the worldliness and 
greed of the prelates, and the gross and shallow artifices of the popular 
religion, were pretty sure to inculcate parsimony and saving. By 
voluntarily and sturdily cutting themselves off from the circumstance 
of the old faith, they were certain, like the Quakers of more than two 
centuries later, to become comparatively wealthy. They had nothing to 
spare for monk or priest.^ 

^ Trevelyan, England in the Age of Wikliffe (London, 1899), p. 170 (italics ours). 
See also Rashall, in Dictionary of National Biography (New York, 1909), Vol. XXI, 
p. 1127. 

2 Wratislaw, John Hus (London, 1882), p. 106. 

3 Rogers, History of English Agriculture and Prices (Oxford, 1882), Vol. IV, p. 72 
(italics ours). 



PROTESTANTISM AND THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 269 

In the growth of LoUardy the CathoHcs were taken by sur- 
prise; but the ancient church had the advantage of long- 
established position, and it soon recovered itself and prepared 
to meet its foes. By Catholic influence, an act against hereti- 
cal preaching was carried through Parliament in 1382. We 
reproduce a part of this act: 

Forasmuch as it is openly known, that there be divers evil persons 
within the realm, going from county to county, and from town to town, 
in certain habits under dissimulation of great holiness, and without the 
licence of our holy father the pope, or of the ordinaries of the places, or 
other sufficient authority, do preach daily, not only in churches and 
churchyards, but also in markets, fairs, and other open places, where a 
great congregation of people is, divers sermons containing heresies and 
notorious errors, to the great emblemishing of the Christian faith, 
and destruction of the laws, and of the estate of holy Church, to the 
great peril of the souls of the people, and of all the realm of 

England It is ordained in this present parliament that the 

king's commissions be directed to the sheriffs and other ministers of 
our sovereign lord the king, or other sufficient persons after and 
according to the certifications of the prelates thereof to be made in 
the chancery from time to time, to arrest all such preachers, and also 
their fautors, maintainers, and abettors, and to hold them in arrest and 
strong prison, till they will justify them according to the law and reason 
of holy Church.' .... 

This law proved to be too mild. Lollardism continued to 
grow; and about twenty years later (1401), another statute, 
more drastic and awful, was promulgated by the English 
Parliament. After giving a recital of the situation in much 
the same words as those used in the previous act, the new law 
went on to provide against heretics the penalty of death by 
fire, "that such punishment may strike in fear to the minds 
of other [people], whereby no such wicked doctrine and 
heretical and erroneous opinions, nor their authors and fautors 
in the said realm and dominions against the catholic faith, 

' Adams and Stephens, Select Documents of English Constitutional History (New 
York, 1908), pp. 14s, 146 (italics ours). 



270 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

Christian law, and determination of the holy church, which 
God prohibit, be sustained or in any wise suffer.'" 

European civilization at the close of the Middle Ages reproduced 
the social problem of the ancient Hebrews. — The protest against 
Catholicism was of the same general nature as the ancient 
prophetic warfare against Baalism. We have already seen 
that the established religion of the pre-exilic Hebrews became 
identified with the despotic rule of an upper class which 
absorbed the landed property of Israel (Part III, chaps, x, 
xvii-xxiv). The Hebrew nation arose at the point of contact 
between Amorite city-states and Israelite clans from the 
wilderness. The extension of Amorite law over the primitive 
highland clans provoked a widespread religious and economic 
revolt. A legal and moral conflict was precipitated which 
came to a center about the subject of property in the soil. 

A similar condition came to pass in Europe at the close of 
the mediaeval period. The kingdoms of Europe arose by the 
consolidation of nomadic social groups. At first, these 
groups (called "clans" or "tribes") had been organized on the 
same footing as the clans of Israel. Many of their ancient 
customs persisted with the force of law all the way up through 
the Middle Ages into the time of the Reformation; and these 
old customs were slowly crowded aside by the extension of 
Roman law throughout Europe. On this highly important 
subject, Lindsay writes : 

The universal testimony of contemporaries is that the gradual intro- 
duction of Roman law brought the greatest change, by placing a means 
of universal oppression in the hands of the over-lords. There is no need 
to suppose that the lawyers who introduced the new jurisprudence meant 
to use it to degrade and oppress the peasant class. A slight study of the 
Weisthiimer shows how complicated and varied was this consuetudinary 
law which regulated the relations between peasant and over-lord. It 
was natural, when great estates grew to be principalities, whether lay or 
clerical, that the over-lords should seek for some principle of codification 

^ Adams and Stephens, op. ciL, pp. 168-71. 



PROTESTANTISM AND THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 271 

or reduction to uniformity. It had been the custom for centuries to 
attempt to simplify the ruder and involved German codes by bringing 

them into harmony with the principles of Roman law But 

when the bewildering multiplicity of customary usages which had 
governed the relations of cultivators to over-lords was simplified accord- 
ing to the ideas of Roman law, the result was in the highest degree dan- 
gerous to the free peasantry of Germany. The conception of strict 
individual proprietorship tended to displace the indefinite conception of 
communal proprietorship, and the peasants could only appear in the guise 
of tenants on long leases, or serfs who might have some personal rights 
but no rights of property, or slaves who had no rights at all. The 
new jurisprudence began by attacking the common lands, pastures, and 
forests.^ 

The officials of the Roman Catholic church instinctively 
arrayed themselves on the side of the Roman law. Augustine 
and other great theologians of the early church had been 
trained in Roman jurisprudence; and as the social development 
of the European states approached the level of the ancient 
empire, it was but natural for the church, the heir of that 
empire, to assist in shaping the new European kingdoms on the 
old Roman model. Two legal writers of great weight speak 
as follows : 

By the civil law .... is generally understood the civ-il or municipal 
law of the Roman empire, as comprised in the institute, the code, and 

the digest of the emperor Justinian [about 530 A.D.] The body of 

Roman law, or corpus juris civilis, as pubhshed about the time of 
Justinian .... fell soon into neglect and oblivion [owing to the 

conquest of the empire by the barbarians] About the year 1 130 

.... a copy of the digests was found at Amalfi, in Italy; which 
accident, concurring ivith the policy of the Roman ecclesiastics, suddenly 
gave new vogue and authority to the civil law, [and] introduced it into 

several nations.^ 

Roman law entered upon its new career in the West, radiating from 
Italy over the lands that lay north and west of her from the twelfth to 

'Lindsay, History of the Reformation (New York, 1906), Vol. I, pp. 107, 108 
(italics ours) . 

^ Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (New York, 1890, Chase s 

ed.), pp. 46, 47- 



272 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

the sixteenth century. Thereafter, Spain, France, Holland, and Ger- 
many became the chief propagators of the imperial law/ 

This legal point, of course, does not exhaust the subject. 
It is merely one way of approach to a complex problem. 
Wherever we turn in Europe at the period of the Reformation, 
we encounter sociological and economic facts that remind us 
of our inquiry into the Hebrew social question; and the results 
of the two inquiries confirm each other. Everywhere, at the 
time of the Reformation, we discover that the high religious 
excitement was accompanied by external social conditions 
about whose nature and meaning there can be no mistake. 
The Reformation as a whole was a very complex movement, 
involving an objective, material problem and a corresponding 
inward, spiritual problem. And since these problems were 
bound up so closely, the Reformation cannot be truly described 
either in material or spiritual terms alone. In the centuries 
immediately following that period, there was no real historical 
scholarship; and the spiritual side of the great changes that 
issued in Protestantism was emphasized while the social 
aspect of the movement was overlooked. Until very recent 
times, indeed, the Reformation has been understood as little 
as the Bible itself. This error will be corrected as we learn 
that the collision between Protestantism and Catholicism 
was fundamentally of the same nature as the warfare between 
the Yahweh and Baal parties among the ancient Hebrews. 
"Things civil and things sacred were so inextricably mixed 
that it is quite impossible to speak of the Reformation as a 
purely religious movement."^ 

Martin Luther's personal experience of Bible religion brought 
Protestantism to a center about the doctrine of "Justification by 
Faith." — All social changes need a philosophy of some kind, 

I Taylor, The Science of Jurisprudence (New York, 1908), p. 151, cf. p. 46. Cf. 
Adams, Civilization During the Middle Ages (New York, 1898) pp. 33 f.; Bryce, 
Studies in History atid Jurisprudence (New York, 1901), p. 89. 

' Lindsay, History of the Reformation (New York, 1906), Vol. I, p. 8. 



PROTESTANTISM AND THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 273 

which will give them a point of departure and shape their 
course. Otherwise they can be nothing more than blind 
struggles ending in anarchy. For a long time, the reaction 
of Europe against Roman ecclesiasticism was a blind protest 
against the claims of the church to an ever-increasing share 
of the world's wealth. Unless the world gave tribute to the 
church, the world could not be right with God. This, of 
course, was not a matter of theology; but it was the practical 
attitude of the church. In practice, the church defined a 
"heretic" as a man who would not pay his ecclesiastical bills. 
If he paid his bills, he might believe anything at all (not in 
theory, of course, but in practice); while, on the other 
hand, refusal to pay church bills was the one, infallible sign 
that a man's beliefs called for investigation. The church was 
like steel on the view that there was no redemption — no 
justification — no salvation — outside of its walls. The church 
view of redemption called for the payment of money by the 
worshiper; and this payment was the solid, material sign of 
adherence to the claims of the church. The conservatism of 
established ideas protected the church long after Europe had 
grown restless under the dominion of the priesthood. Ideas 
are like running water. They cut a channel in which they 
tend to flow. So long, therefore, as the minds of men were 
possessed by the idea that redemption could be had only 
within the walls of the Roman church, the protest against the 
economics of the church could be of little avail. 

But the temporal, economic power of Catholicism was at 
last broken by Martin Luther, a German monk. Although 
the Reformation itself is to be described as both a spiritual 
and a material movement, Luther's personal experience can 
be interpreted only in spiritual terms. The changes that 
occurred in his brain had no conscious connection with 
economics. He labored under a profound sense of unworthi- 
ness and sinfulness; and he went through a long, bitter 



274 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

struggle to find the "way" of redemption or salvation. He 
wanted to be saved; and he asked how he could be justified 
in the sight of God. When he began his quest, he believed 
that salvation was to be found somewhere within the walls of 
the Catholic church, as he had beeto. taught from childhood. 
So he tried the different ways of justification provided by the 
church. But the outward ceremonies and rites brought him 
no inward peace; his heart was hungry and his soul was 
troubled. If he had been a mere layman, who had to pay the 
usual retail price for the exercises of religion, there might be 
some ground for putting an economic interpretation upon his 
experience. But Luther was himself a clerical person, a 
"religious" man in the technical, Roman sense; and he got 
his religion, so to speak, for nothing. Hence, in his case, we 
are in contact with an idea, pure and simple. The critical 
point in Luther's experience came when he began to study the 
Bible. It was an unusual and revolutionary thing at that 
time for a person of religious training to study the Bible. This 
ancient collection of writings came to Luther like a newly 
found world. His discovery of the Bible can be compared 
with the discovery of America by Columbus. A new spiritual 
continent rose before the vision of the German monk. In the 
Scriptures he found that redemption, or justification, is to be 
had, not through ceremonies and rites, but through faith in 
the God of the Bible as revealed in Jesus. If a man could 
thus come into personal touch with God, where was the need 
for a priesthood ? Europe was unconsciously waiting for his 
message. "Its discontent was the sounding-board which 
made his words reverberate."^ The spell that the papacy had 
thrown over the West was broken. 

Bible-study was opposed by Catholicism, but promoted by 
Protestantism. — Martin Luther's use of the Bible suggests the 

^Lindsay, supra, Vol. I, p. 113; Vol. II, p. 16. Cf. Preserved Smith, Martin 
Luther (Boston, 191 1), pp. 8-13. 



PROTESTANTISM AND THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 275 

relation of the Scriptures to the Catholic and Protestant 
churches respectively. The idea of translating the Bible out 
of the ancient languages into a modern tongue was not original 
with Luther. It had occurred many years before to John 
Wikliffe, under whose leadership the Old and New Testaments 
had been put into fourteenth-century Enghsh. Wikliffe's 
Bibles, however, had to be toilsomely copied out by hand, for 
as yet the art of making books from type was unknown. But 
by Luther's time, the printer had come to the aid of the 
scholar; and the Bible became one of the "best sellers" known 
to the book trade of the modern world. 

The attitude of the mediaeval church organization toward 
Scripture study was what might naturally be expected. Luther's 
ecclesiastical superior in the Roman church commanded him to 
abstain from reading the Bible; and the men who undertook 
to put the Bible into modern languages found themselves 
hindered and treated as criminals at every turn. William 
Tyndale, the first Englishman who translated and printed the 
Bible in his native tongue, was forced to leave the country 
when his plans were discovered; and the first prmted English 
Bible was made in Germany.^ Later, after the Reformation 
had been established in England by law, the Bible was trans- 
lated and published by authorization of the King, who 
appointed it to be set up and read in churches. In all Protes- 
tant countries, none surpassed England in the interest with 
which the people received the Scriptures. This wonderful 
collection of writings now first began to come before the 
popular mind. The situation is well depicted by Green: 

The popularity of the Bible had been growing fast from the day when 
Bishop Bonner set up the first six copies in St. Paul's. Even then, we 

' Pollard, Records of the English Bible (Oxford University Press, 191 1), PP- 3 ff- 
In justice to the Catholic authorities, it should be observed that Tyndale and other 
translators at the time of the Reformation did not content themselves with a simple 
rendering of the ancient text into modern tongues; but they embellished their margins 
with printed notes hostile to the Roman church. 



276 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

are told, "many well-disposed people used much to resort to the hearing 
thereof, especially when they could get any that had an audible voice to 

read to them One John Porter used sometimes to be occupied 

in that goodly exercise, to the edifying of himself as well as others. This 
Porter was a fresh young man and of a big stature; and great multitudes 
would resort thither to hear him, because he could read well and had an 
audible voice." But the "goodly exercise" of readers such as Porter 
was soon superseded by the continued recitation of both Old Testament 
and New in the public services of the Church; while the small Geneva 
Bibles carried the Scripture into every home, and wove it into the life 
of every English family. 

ReKgion indeed was only one of the causes for this sudden popularity 
of the Bible. The book was equally important in its bearing on the 
intellectual development of the people. All the prose literature of 
England, save the forgotten tracts of Wyclif, has grown up since the 
translation of the Scriptures by Tyndale and Coverdale. So far as the 
nation at large was concerned, no history, no romance, hardly any 
poetry save the little-known verse of Chaucer existed in the English 
tongue when the Bible was ordered to be set up in churches. Sunday 
after Sunday, day after day, the crowds that gathered round the Bible 
in the nave of St. Paul's, or the family group that hung on its words in 
the devotional exercises at home, were leavened with a new literature. 
Legend and annal, war song and psalm, State-roll and biography, the 
mighty voices of prophets, the parables of Evangelists, stories of mission 
journeys, of perils by the sea and among the heathen, philosophic 
arguments, apocalyptic visions, all were flung broadcast over minds 
unoccupied for the most part by any rival learning.^ 

On its economic side, the Reformation took the course fore- 
shadowed by events in the Middle Ages. — During the century 
preceding the Reformation, the peasantry all over Europe were 
in a state of restlessness which, in many localities, flamed out 
into revolt. The vast lower class, on which the upper and middle 
orders rested , knew but little about religion . An extensive inquiry 
was made into the religious condition of the people of northern 
Germany after the revolt from Catholicism. Luther's experi- 
ence in the Saxon Visitation was typical. After his return he 
prepared a "Small Cathechism," in the introduction to which 

' Green, History of the English People, Book VII, chap. i. 



PROTESTANTISM AND THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 277 

he said, "The common people know nothing at all of Christian 
doctrine, especially in the villages! and unfortunately many 
pastors are well-nigh unskilled and incapable of teaching; and 
although all are called Christians and partake of the Holy 
Sacrament, they know neither the Lord's Prayer, nor the 
Creed, nor the Ten Commandments, but live like poor cattle 
and senseless swine, though, now that the gospel is come, they 
have learnt well enough how they may abuse their liberty."' 
It was found by Luther "that the only application of the new 
evangelical liberty made by many of the people was to refuse 
to pay all clerical dues." General conditions were no different 
in England.^ The hostility of the merchant and manu- 
facturing classes everywhere toward the Roman church was 
instinctive. "The trading classes of the towns," writes Green, 
"had been the first to embrace the doctrines of the Refor- 
mation. "^ And we find that "the religious reformation in 
every land of Europe," as Motley says, "derived a portion 
of its strength from the opportunity it afforded to potentates 
and great nobles for helping themselves to Church property."^ 
The situation in England may be taken as a type of that in 
all countries where Protestantism became the estabHshed form 
of Christianity. The Enghsh Reformation began during the 
reign of Henry the Eighth (1509-1547)- In his time the 
pressure for economic change became too great to be resisted 
any longer by the Roman church in England. The vast 
landed property of the church was transferred by act of 
Parliament into the hands of the King, who turned most of 
it over to the nobility. Green writes: 

The bulk of these possessions were granted lavishly away to the 
nobles and courtiers about the King, and to a host of adventurers who 
"had become gospellers for the abbey lands." Something Uke a fifth of 

' Lindsay, op. cit., I, p. 4og. 

^ Ibid., -pp. 405, 406. 

3 Green, op. cit., Book VI, chap. v. 

1 Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic (Philadelphia, McKay), Vol. I, p. -^7^- 



278 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

the actual land in the kingdom was in this way transferred from the 
holding of the Church to that of nobles and gentry. Not only were 
the older houses enriched, but a new aristocracy was erected from 
among the dependants of the Court. The Russells and the Cavendishes 
are familiar instances of families which rose from obscurity through the 
enormous grants of Church-land made to Henry's courtiers.' 

' Green, History of the English People, Book VI, chap. i. Cf. Froude, History of 
England (New York, 1873), Vol. Ill, p. 359; Vol. VTI, pp. 11, 40. Cf. "Cambridge 
Modem History," Vol. II, The Reformation (New York, 1904). 



CHAPTER XXXIII 

PROTESTANTISM AS EXTERNAL AUTHORITY 

Protestantism, at the time of its legal establishment, was based 
upon the union of Church and State.— When the Protestants 
broke away from Catholicism, this great revolution was accom- 
plished by law. The Protestant states, in their corporate 
capacity as "social groups," had to dispossess the Roman 
church of its property, and make the old forms of worship 
illegal. Furthermore, such principles as the toleration of 
different views, and the liberty of conscience, were unknown 
to the world at that time. So the Protestant states had to 
make legal provision for churches of their own. As a conse- 
quence, the churches of the Reformation slipped into the place 
of the banished Romanism. These considerations prepare us 
to see that Protestantism, at first, held the same position in 
the social body as did Catholicism, Judaism, and paganism. 
It was the religion of the state, or, as it is called in England, 
the "established" worship. Although the external forms and 
circumstances were different, the sociological meaning of 
Protestantism was everywhere the same. Church and State 
were everywhere united; and all the people of a state were 
compelled to support the local church. The historian Froude 
writes: "The Council of Geneva, the General Assembly at 
Edinburgh, the Smalcaldic League, the English Parliament, 
and the Spanish Inquisition held the same opinions on the 
wickedness of heresy; they differed only in the definition of 
the crime. "^ 

The Protestant clergy, therefore, held a position as high as 
the Catholic priesthood; and in practice they made as lofty 
claims to respect as did the ministers of the Roman church. 

' Froude, History of England (New York, 1873), Vol. Ill, p. 3"- 

279 



28o SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

They were appointed by officials whose authority was derived 
from the state; and they could be deprived of office by the 
same power. A good illustration is found in the famous 
Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, which were set 
forth by national law in the year 1562. Article 23 declares: 
"Those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be 
chosen and called to this work by men who have public author- 
ity given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send 
Ministers into the Lord's Vineyard."^ John Calvin's view of 
the ministry was even higher than this, for in his Institutes of 
the Christian Religion he laid down the principle that the 
clergy ought to rule all mankind within the terms of a theoc- 
racy. His autocratic tendencies were checked by the civil 
power ;^ but the prevailing union of Church and State made 
the church an engine of public authority. 

Protestantism, like the Jewish and Catholic churches, viewed 
the religion of the Bible as ordained by external divine authority. 
— Since Protestantism at first occupied the same social position 
as the older forms of worship, it is easy to see how the Reforma- 
tion churches necessarily started out by taking the ancient 
view of the Bible and its religion. "Orthodox" theology was 
demanded alike by the social and the mental constitution 
of early Protestantism. The idea of natural, evolutionary 
development of religious belief was unthinkable at that period 
of human history, and was unknown to the Protestant world 
for many generations. 

It is a curious, but explainable, fact that the Reformation 
churches did not at once perceive the logic of their position 
with reference to the Bible. On the one hand, the whole 
Reformation movement was an economic movement, directed 
by the civil powers of the Protestant states ; and these powers 
considered their authority to be inherent in themselves. On 

^ Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York, 1899), Vol. Ill, p. 501 (italics ours). 
'Lindsay, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. iii, 127, 128, 129. 



PROTESTANTISM AS EXTERNAL AUTHORITY 281 

the other hand, looking at the matter from the rehgious point 
of view, the Reformers did not think of themselves as really 
breaking with the church of God. They had been trained in 
CathoHcism to regard the church institution itself as authori- 
tative; and they unconsciously took this view over into their 
own ecclesiastical organizations, which they looked upon as 
the "true church." Hence, we encounter the paradox that 
the more spiritually minded of the Reformers, like Martin 
Luther, treated the Bible with more freedom than the ration- 
ahstic Reformers of Calvin's type. Although Luther held the 
Bible to be in a general way " the Word of God," he emphasized 
the behever's personal experience of God through Christ, and 
considered himself at liberty to choose and criticize among 
the sacred books with considerable freedom.^ The Lutheran 
tendency, however, was gradually counteracted by the 
influence of Calvinism, which made itself more and more felt 
among the Protestant churches of all countries, even in Ger- 
many. Calvin's type of thought was rationalistic, systematic, 
and legalistic; and it corresponded more harmoniously than 
Lutheranism with the existing social constitution of the 
world. Monarchy was the order of the day; and Calvin 
pictured God as an Absolute Ruler, whose sovereignty was 
more despotic and awful than that of the most potent 
human king or emperor. Setting out from a few principles, 
Calvin deduced a logical and orderly system of div-inity; 
and his formulas had enormous influence in shaping Protes- 
tant theology. Although Calvin urged a lofty place for the 
ministry, he was careful to say that they should rule man- 
kind "in the Word of God"— that is, in the Scriptures. He 
thought the words of the Bible should be received by men as 
if God himself uttered these words into the ear of the reader. 
"The exegesis of Calvin," as Gilbert says, "was fatally 
defective in that it subordinated Scripture to the dogmas of 

^ Preserved Smith, Martin Luther (Poston, 1911), pp. 263-70, 



2«2 



SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 



the church."^ On the increasmg dogmatism and appeal to 
external authority in Protestant theology, several writers 
make the following statements: 

More and more, as the first generation of Protestant leaders recedes 
into the past, the theology of those who come after passes into the 

scholastic stage The Bible was looked upon as an authoritative 

text-book, from which doctrines and proofs of doctrine were to be 
drawn with little or no discrimination as to the use to be made of the 
different sacred books. Such were the ramifications of the system that 
little if any space was left for varieties of opinion, and dissent upon 

any point was treated as a heresy The impression often made 

was that of a divine absolutism enthroned in the souls of men as well as 
in the visible world of creatures.^ 

The Protestant Reformation was mediaeval, not modern, in its spirit 

and interest Bondage to an external law of faith and practice 

was for a long time as complete in Protestantism as in Cathohcism, and 
the one was as conservative in the field of rehgious thought as the 
other. 

In their effort to guarantee the absolute infallibility of the Bible 
some of the theologians of the day were carried to the furthest possible 
lengths. The Bible is not in any sense a hvunan book; it is the literal 
word of God in all its parts, having been dictated by the Holy Spirit 
to men acting only as amanuenses. Who the author of this or that 
book might be was of no consequence, and all questions as to date and 
circumstances of composition, or as to authenticity and integrity became 
unimportant and irrelevant. Not simply is the Bible as a whole, or 
the truths which it contains, from God, but every phrase, word, and 
letter, including even the vowel points of the Hebrew Massoretic text. 
It is infallible, not alone in the sphere of religion and morals, but in 
history, geography, geology, astronomy, and every other field upon 
which it touches. 3 

By the beginning of the eighteenth century the structure of scriptural 
interpretation had become enormous. It seemed destined to hide for- 
ever the real character of our sacred literature and to obscure the 
great light which Christianity had brought into the world. The Chiu"ch, 

'Gilbert, Interpretation of the Bible (New York, 1908), p. 213; cf. pp. 218, 
219, 233. 

* Fisher, History of Christian Doctrine (New York, 1899), p. 347. 

3 McGiffert, Protestant Thought Before Kant (New York, 1911), pp. 186, 147. 



PROTESTANTISM AS EXTERNAL AUTHORITY 283 

Eastern and Western, Catholic and Protestant, was content to sit in its 
shadow, and the great divines of all branches of the Church reared every 
sort of fantastic buttress to strengthen or adorn it. It seemed to be 
founded for eternity.' 

These tendencies and views prevailed wherever Protestant- 
ism established itself. In Europe, and in the new communities 
of America and the other colonial possessions, the Bible and 
its religion were taken to be the products of an absolute and 
infallible verbal inspiration. The ideas and laws by which 
Israel was distinguished from the surrounding heathenism 
were believed to have been put into human history amid the 
smoke, flame, and thunder of Sinai. There was no more 
disposition to doubt the older theory than there was to question 
whether one and one made two. The authoritative con- 
ception monopolized the field. The Bible and its religion 
were practically regarded as the outcome of a spiritistic seance 
on a grand scale, in which God imparted messages through the 
medium of certain Hebrews, and authenticated these com- 
munications by a display of supernatural marvels.^ This 
theory was held by the Lutheran pastor, the EngHsh rector, 
the preacher in the Scotch kirk, the Methodist elder, the 
Congregational minister, and all other Protestant clergymen 
and laymen. Moreover, it was professed by the Roman 
Catholic and Greek churches, and by the Jewish synagogues. 
It took its rise in the ancient world, on the basis of habits of 
thought common to the Jews and their heathen contemporaries. 
It was held by the biblical authors themselves (who wrote after 
the event); its reign was undisputed in the Middle Ages of 
Christendom; and it has, in fact, largely prevailed throughout 
modern history. It ruled, of course, in the sixteenth century, 
at the time of the Reformation (i 500-1 600) ; and the same can 

^ White, History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (New York, 
1896), Vol. II, p. 311. 

^ Exception has been taken to the "seance" figure as a caricature of orthodoxy; 
but it certainly represents the older view. 



284 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

fairly be said of the seventeenth century (i 600-1 700), despite 
the critical work of such men as Spinoza and Simon. In 
harmony with the spirit of orthodox Protestantism, the 
seventeenth century saw the production of what is even yet 
the most popular of all English renderings of the Bible, a 
translation "authorized" by a monarchical British govern- 
ment. The King James Version was thus published by 
"authority," and "appointed to be read in churches."'' 

^ Among those who prefer this version of the Bible, few can tell who "authorized" 
it, or why it was published. The reader is duly impressed by its "authority," and in 
most cases no doubt imagines the authority to be something mysterious and peculiar 
to itself. By the same token, the partisan of the King James Bible is opposed to 
modem "revised" versions, and usually overlooks the fact that the King James Bible 
describes itself on the title-page as "diligently compared with former translations," 
and "revised." 



CHAPTER XXXIV 
PROTESTANTISM REJECTS THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 

Orthodox Protestantism reproduced the attitude of the Jewish 
and Catholic churches toward the social problem. — We have seen 
that Judaism and Catholicism took form in periods of great 
social tension, and that they endeavored to save the world by 
a legalistic redemption of the individual. In this way, they 
tacitly denied the existence of a social problem, and prepared 
for their own loss of influence. It now becomes our duty to 
observe that the evolution of Protestantism went forward in 
obedience to the same law of history. 

Aided by the opening of new land in America, the reorgani- 
zation of European society which took place at the time of the 
Reformation practically solved the social problem of that age. 
But as modern history took its course, and century followed 
century, the problem of social adjustment began once more to 
press for solution. The emergence of the modem social 
problem is indicated by various events. Notable among these 
are the English commonwealth of the seventeenth centur}', the 
French and American Revolutions in the eighteenth century, 
the European uprisings in the mid-nineteenth century, and the 
progress of socialism down to the present hour. 

Along with the profound social changes indicated by these 
important historical facts, the Protestant churches went 
through an evolution identical with that which took place in 
the Jewish and Catholic churches. We saw that these older 
ecclesiastical institutions became identified ^^dth the upper 
social class; and the same situation is illustrated by the new 
churches that arose out of the Reformation. Although 
Protestantism derived its propelling motives from the dis- 
content of all classes with Romanism, the actual break with 

28s 



286 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

Rome was engineered by the ruling authorities in the various 
Protestant states; and this means that the churches of the 
Reformation were instituted, not by the "people" in the 
democratic sense, but by the upper classes. The logic of the 
origin of Protestantism went with it from the start. Being an 
upper-class institution, it soon began to alienate the lower and 
middle classes. A number of considerations worked together 
toward this result. The repudiation of papal authority, and 
the lack of entire harmony among the Protestant sects, 
were the signs of a new independence of thought. Among the 
educated classes, this led toward agnosticism and atheism, 
which were decidedly new phenomena, for until modern times 
all classes of people. Christian and pagan, had agreed that 
there were gods of some sort. On the other hand, the lower 
social class, troubled by the pressure of poverty, fell into 
indifference. The tendency of Protestantism, therefore, was 
to confine the organized life of religion within the upper classes 
which had established the Reformation; and while the vast 
lower class was drifting slowly away, the new churches moved 
steadily into a dogmatic legalism which reproduced the spirit 
of the Jewish and Catholic churches. 

Protestant legalism came to a center about the doctrine of the 
person of Jesus. — ^The churches of the Reformation declared, 
with increasing emphasis, that salvation depended upon the 
acceptance of certain doctrines about the person and work of 
Jesus. The Old Testament was interpreted as a huge "type," 
or "figure," of Christ; and it was resorted to as an arsenal of 
proof -texts in a way which drove all vitality out of that most 
interesting and vivid collection of documents. Building up 
mainly from Paul's utterances about Jesus, Protestantism 
constructed a metaphysical Christianity which took the form 
of pure legalism. God was viewed as the Chief Justice of a 
Supreme Court in which redemption was purchased by a 
mysterious potency residing in the work of Christ. The 



PROTESTANTISM REJECTS THE SOCIAL PROBLEM 287 

believer availed himseK of the redemptive merits of Christ by 
accepting Jesus in a metaphysical, divine character as the 
Savior. This, of course, was not the teaching of Jesus himself, 
who, in the parable of the Prodigal, and the Sermon on the 
Mount, had little or nothing in common with orthodox Protes- 
tantism. But the Reformation churches, held fast in the grip 
of social forces which they did not understand, lost sight of the 
Bible itself amid a rank upgrowth of doctrines about the Bible. 
The parallel between scholasticism in the Protestant, Cathohc, 
and Jewish churches was thus complete.^ 

Orthodox Protestantism resolved salvation into a purely 
individual process. According to this view, the world's 
troubles were to be cured by the reformation of individual 
sinners. If the individual was redeemed, then the world at 
large could be rescued by spiritual arithmetic, through the 
simple addition of one soul after another to the mass of the 
redeemed. Whether or not one agrees with legahstic Protes- 
tantism upon the exact "method" of saving the individual, it 
would be manifest folly to deny the abstract proposition that 
sinners need to be saved, and that bad people should be 
reformed. In emphasizing this fact. Protestantism occupies 
an impregnable position. But this is also the claim of the 
Jewish and Catholic churches. These other ecclesiastical 
bodies agree with orthodox Protestantism that we need better 
men and women. The only difference between them lies in 
their conception of the legal process of redemption. But the 
process in each case is purely a matter of individual salvation; 
and hence, from the sociological standpoint, all three churches 
are in the same category. 

The decline of orthodox Protestantism is due to its emphasis 
upon individual rescue as the only method of redemption.— 
Although the doctrme of personal salvation is profoundly 

' For Protestant confessions of faith, see Schaff, The Creeds of Chrislcudom (New 
York), Vol. III. In studying these creeds, it should be borne in mind that they took 
form in the upper social class, and were established by "authority." 



288 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

true, it may be handled in such a way as to be false. To 
insist that individual redemption is the one, sovereign method 
of reform, is to claim in effect that there is no " social " problem, 
in the scientific sense, and is to ignore the fact that society, as 
an organized "group," may also be a sinner. In other words, 
orthodox Protestantism practically discounts the existence of 
social institutions, and sets up the doctrine that society is a 
crowd, like the grains of sand in a heap : reform each individual, 
and the world is saved. Protestantism has thus rejected the 
social problem as clearly as did its great historic predecessors, 
the Catholic and the Jewish churches. 

Before considering the relation of sociological Bible-study 
to the modern world, it is necessary to discuss two further 
topics, the rise of scientific investigation of the Bible, and the 
modem separation of Church and State. Social development 
is a complex interweaving of many tendencies; and while we 
long to settle the problems of history by some brief and 
expeditious method, the actual course of social evolution 
demands the exercise of much patience. 



CHAPTER XXXV 
MODERN SCIENTIFIC BIBLE-STUDY 

This chapter is not a history, but an estimate.— This chapter 
stands in its present position as an item in the general argu- 
ment, and not as an essay on the development of scientific 
biblical scholarship. It is not a history of modern investiga- 
tion of the Bible; it is a brief appraisal of the meaning and 
value of higher criticism in the pre-sociological stage. The 
significance of sociological Bible-study wiU be considered in 
the closing chapter. At present we shall speak only of the 
literary and historical forms of criticism as developed in the 
Wellhausen school, and accepted in the leading centers of 
academic learning.^ 

The general attitude of this book toward scientific Bible- 
study is made clear by the previous chapters. We have seen 
that the higher criticism is part of the intellectual awakening 
which leads from the Middle Ages into the modem world, and 
that the literary and historical forms of criticism are a neces- 
sary introduction to all scientific study of the Bible. We shall 
now look at scientific Bible-study, not as an academic matter, 
but as one of the mfluences in the complex development of 
modern life. 

Scientific Bible-study has largely replaced the legal view of 
redemption by the moral view.— When we investigate the bearing 
of modern biblical scholarship on religious ideas, we are at 
once confronted by a problem which criticism has hardly 
touched, and which m fact lies outside of its domain. Leaving 
the mysteries of documentary analysis and historical recon- 

' The facts in regard to the history of modem scientific Bible-study are on record 
in easily accessible form; and we have referred to them briefly in earlier porUons of 
this work. (See Prefatory.) 

289 



290 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

struction behind, we pass over into the field of ethics or 
morahty. The new scholarship clears away the legalistic idea 
of Bible reHgion, and brings the great moral problem before 
us. Scientific investigation has indeed swept aside the mass 
of legalism and supernaturalism that has obscured the Bible; 
and it has thus laid open the moral questions that underlie 
the history of Israel. Science has pointed to the prophets as 
the great, central figures in the development of Bible religion; 
it has demonstrated that the prophets were moral teachers; 
and it has pointed out that the work of Jesus builds up from 
the work of the prophets. Consequently, in the mind of the 
modern scholar, the legaHstic interpretation of Christianity 
and the Bible has passed away, giving place to a more natural, 
understandable, and reasonable view. Modem scientific 
Bible-study, then, has not only an academic meaning; it has 
a practical value as well. It has shown that religion stands 
directly connected with great historical movements and every- 
day problems. Until this was accomplished, no further 
advance in the study of the Bible and its religion would have 
been possible. 

Thus far, most men of critical scholarship, like men of 
"orthodox" training, have treated redemption from the standpoint 
of individualism. — ^The contemporary higher critic, whether he 
be a professor of divinity or an active pastor, has been through 
a struggle. He is conscious of the effort involved in departing 
from older views; and he feels that he has passed through an 
important change. The laity, however, can judge the higher 
critic only by what he says. It is impossible to preach the 
critical, scientific method in the pulpit, because the church is 
not a university. When standing before a church audience, a 
man of the "new school" may give only the results of critical 
study as applied to theology and religion. 

We have guarded against misapprehension by pointing out 
the scientific meaning and value of modern critical scholarship. 



MODERN SCIENTIFIC BIBLE-STUDY 291 

From the standpoint of practical, or non-academic problems, 
however, the higher critics thus far occupy virtually the same 
ground as their conservative, orthodox predecessors and col- 
leagues. For while the new school replaces the legal by the 
moral view of rehgion, it stands alongside the old school in 
treating redemption as an individual or personal matter. The 
new school has recovered the moral standpoint of Jesus and 
the prophets; but thus far, on the whole, it moves within the 
terms of individualism as a gospel sufficient for the salvation 
of the world. The new and the old schools have been parted by 
their intellectual perceptions, but not by any difference of 
practical emphasis. The old school, in spite of its legalism 
and supernaturahsm, always viewed the moral regeneration of 
the individual as an incident of the redemptive process; and 
up to the present time, the new school with a few exceptions, 
has merely banished legalism from theology, and put moral 
regeneration to the front as the essential feature of redemption. 
The struggle to establish the critical method has prevented 
the new school from realizing the incompleteness of its work. 
The scientific discovery of the moral character of the Bible 
and its rehgion does not have the finality that most critics 
have assumed. Although it throws light upon older problems 
regarding the nature and composition of the Bible, it brings 
to view another problem in which the Bible is linked up with 
the moving forces of all history. The conclusions to which we 
are now advancing will be indicated in the final chapter. But 
before turning to these conclusions, the general argument 
relates itself to another fact of large and epoch-making impor- 
tance in social history. While this fact is a commonplace, its 
connection with the problem before us is not often discussed. 



CHAPTER XXXVI 
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 

Modern society dissolves the ancient bonds between politics 
and religion. — Another sociological fact of large importance now 
claims our attention. We have seen that among all primitive 
and heathen peoples, religion and politics are intimately 
connected. Religion is a positive, legal bond, holding social 
groups together. Whoever does not worship the gods and 
practice the ceremonies of a given group is an alien to that 
group. It was under the dominance of this view of life, which 
we have called "the church-and-state regime," that all ancient 
civilization existed. When we pause to recall the immemorial 
connection between religious and political matters, the modern 
divorce of Church and State appears not only sudden, but 
almost miraculous. While the religion of the Bible came into 
being under the church-and-state system, and was entangled 
with that system for thousands of years, it now exists in the 
more progressive part of modern civilization without the 
support of external authority; and the principle of the separa- 
tion of Church and State tends constantly to spread. 

There are many good and sufficient reasons for this great 
social revolution; but we shall not inquire into them. The 
fact itself is before us. The "disestablishment" of religion is 
complete, for instance, in the United States, where the national 
constitution forbids Congress to make any law respecting the 
establishment of religion. Although England has an "estab- 
lished" church, the legal recognition of "nonconformity," and 
the right of "dissenters" to vote, to sit in Parliament, and to 
be ministers of the Crown, completely neutralize the original 
principle of state-reHgion. The same result has been attained 
in other Christian countries, such as Germany and France, 

292 



SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 293 

by the passage of laws appropriate to the various locahties. 
The general fact, then, comes before us that in modem society 
religion either is, or tends to be, no longer a direct political 
and economic issue. The separation of Church and State is 
now a commonplace; and there is difficulty in picturing the 
former condition of things to a modern audience. The modem 
layman reads the Bible with the impression that David, and 
Isaiah, and Jesus, and Paul acted and spoke and thought in 
an atmosphere of religious toleration, when, as a matter of 
history, the Bible can be interpreted only in view of the 
church-and-state system. Bearing sharply in mind the separa- 
tion of religious and political issues, we turn to the modem 
social awakening as the final topic in our study. 



CHAPTER XXXVII 
THE MODERN SOCIAL AWAKENING 

The present age is marked by a new interest in the social 
problem. — The influences that we have been tracing in our 
study of modern religious history have now converged in the 
production of a crisis through which society is passing into a 
new epoch. The forces leading to the present crisis are indi- 
cated by the rise of scientific Bible-study, the separation of 
Church and State, and the great social awakening. The 
development of society is very complex; and the present age, 
like all others, is moved by the pressure of many forces. But 
an epoch always gets a distinctive character from the problems 
that crowd themselves into the center of its attention. In this 
way, the twentieth century is more and more becoming the 
age of the social problem. What is the practical bearing of 
sociological Bible-study upon the present crisis? Does this 
line of inquiry give results of any value in reference to the 
social problems now coming up for attention ? A number of 
answers to this question disclose themselves. 

Sociological study of the Bible promotes understanding of the 
social problem, and leads to a social habit of thought. — We aU 
tend to ignore "society," and to discount its existence. We 
accept the fact of society like the air we breathe. It is an 
important condition of life; yet we commonly think as little 
about it as we do about the atmosphere. We think in terms 
of the individual persons with whom we come in contact. 
In forming judgments about the merits of any particular 
question, such as a labor strike, a dynamite outrage, or the 
rise in the cost of living, our first and chief impulse is to blame 
somebody. We find the "causes" of problems in the bad 
habits of certain people; and we undertake to solve problems 

294 



THE MODERN SOCIAL AWAKENING 295 

merely by reforming individuals. This tendency is called 
"individualism;" and it has so much truth in it that it will 
always be a factor in human thought. Nevertheless, when 
individualism is uncorrected by a wider vision of human 
problems, it leads to conclusions and results of limited value. 

The world is now learning, through much labor and sorrow, 
that human problems are caused, not only by the bad will of 
individuals, but by defective social arrangements. Funda- 
mentally, this is the meaning of the present "social" awaken- 
ing. The fact of "society," as distinct from "the individual," 
is forcing itself into the field of human vision as never before. 
The "social consciousness" is rapidly growing into power. 
Sociological study of the Bible, through its appeal to common- 
place interests in religion and economics, helps to give expres- 
sion to the new social spirit. As the student "observes the 
evolution of political and social life in Bible times and sees 
the consequent evolution of moral and religious ideals, it 
becomes perfectly natural for him to employ in the attempt 
to understand the life of his own day and generation those very 
principles which have proved to be fruitful in the understanding 
of the Bible."' The study of the Bible, then, is no mere 
delving into the dust of antiquity; it is a matter of modern 
interest. When we follow out the development of Bible 
religion, we are studying the origin of ideas that live in the 
civilization around us. The religion of the Christian world 
is, to a large extent, a projection of the life of ancient Israel 
across the intervening ages into modern times. 

Since individualism ignores the "social group," it has done 
little toward a real solution of the world's problems; and it is 
now going into partial eclipse. Representing an extreme 
tendency of the human mind, it is at length confronted by the 
opposite extreme. A new philosophy is now spreadmg 
rapidly among aU classes. This new view of human problems 

I Biblical World (Chicago), October, 1909, p. 222. Editorial. 



296 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

discounts personality as much as the ancient individuahsm 
discounts the fact of society. The "sociahst" is greatly con- 
cerned with "class-consciousness," the "class-war," etc. 
According to socialism, the individual bears the same relation 
to history that the drop of water bears to the ocean wave; 
he is not a causal factor in the world's experience, but only an 
atom borne along on the great cosmic flow of things. History 
is interpreted as "economic determinism." In brief, the 
socialist philosophy is in all respects the opposite of individ- 
ualism, and has been well described as "Calvinism with God 
left out." 

Individualism has been called the thesis whereof socialism 
is the opposite, or antithesis; while sociology, or the scientific 
interpretation of society, has been called the synthesis which 
will in time correct the errors of the two extremes.^ Sociologi- 
cal study of the Bible will have a share in this needed corrective 
work. 

Sociological study of the Bible suggests that the modern church 
cannot have a "social program." — ^The present social awakening 
of the church has been criticized for putting too great stress 
upon the public aspect of life, and neglecting the "individual." 
This protest is based on the standpoint of individualism. The 
chief peril in the present awakening, however, does not lie in 
overemphasis upon the public side of Kfe, but in the tendency 
to compromise the church with programs of economic and 
political reform. If the church should lend itself to schemes 
of public reform, it would be forced, necessarily, to "go into 
politics." But since men have always differed about politics, 
those who were opposed to the program or scheme adopted by 
majority vote of their church could not support the ecclesi- 
astical organization; and this would convert the church into 
a political party. There is no escape from this conclusion. 

' Small and Vincent, Introduction to the Study of Society (New York, 1894), p. 41, 
in substance. 



THE MODERN SOCIAL AWAKENING 297 

Our chief guide here is found in the testimony of experience. 
History bears witness in favor of the separation of Church and 
State. Any proposal that seeks to commit the church to a 
program of social reform tends to brmg back the troublous 
times when Church and State were connected, and religious 
questions were political issues.' We are called upon to take 
notice that all former awakenings to the social problem have 
taken place under the " church-and-state regune," and that 
the present social awakenmg is the first movement of the kind 
in all history, since it occurs in the absence of connection 
between religious and poHtical institutions. 

The present relation of the church to society is that of a gen- 
erator of moral and spiritual energy. — The separation of Church 
and State brings into view the real function of the church in 
modern society. The church may be compared to an electric 
dynamo. The function of a dynamo is to convert "power" 
into a useful form. The church is a meeting-place where all 
may find the impulse to useful service, but where no party 
may seek indorsement for its own special program of reform. 
It is true that the church of the past has been identified more 
closely with the upper social classes than with the lower. But 
this has been unavoidable. It is an incident of the historic 
situation, whose adjustment may be safely remitted to the 
future (cf. p. 239, supra). 

There is no doubt that the church has erred in its manner 
of presentmg "individual regeneration" as the one, complete 
cure for the world's problems. By practically insisting that 
individual salvation is the final word m reform, the church 
has alienated many persons for whom a great moral principle 

' This consideration has no reference to charitable or educational work, which of 
course may be safely undertaken by the church. Such work has been lately rechns- 
tened "social service"; but in most cases, the "social gospel" turns out to be the old 
individualism under a new name. The significant thing here is the attempt to conform 
to the spirit of the times by giving a new name to essentially old ideas. This is one of 
the characteristic signs of an age of transition. 



298 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

has been made to appear like a mockery. But this mistake is 
not something peculiar to the church. It simply reflects the 
average opinion up to the present time. The church is 
composed of people, and can move no faster than the people 
move. 

Sociological study of the Bible has a great spiritual meaning. — 
It is clear that this form of Bible-study has a great deal to do 
with what we call "materialistic" and "worldly" matters; it 
suggests many ideas which the modern reader has not been 
accustomed to connect with "religion." But it has a far 
deeper meaning. Only through a long struggle with material- 
istic social problems was Israel fitted to see God. The pro- 
phetic thought revolved endlessly around the criticism of 
personal conduct; and the repeated failure of the prophets to 
advance beyond the individualist conception of the social 
problem threw Israel's thinkers again and again back into the 
realm of the spirit, until at last they learned the lesson that all 
must learn: "Man shall not live by bread alone." 



APPENDIX 
NOTE ON THE HISTORY OF SOCIOLOGICAL BIBLE-STUDY 

In 1880 a book was published under the title Early Hebrew Life: A 
Study in Sociology. (London: Triibner & Co.) The author, John 
Fenton, is otherwise unknown to me. The book is dedicated to the 
German scholar Heinrich Ewald. The author is acquainted with the 
Hebrew language; he is familiar with the writings of Kuenen, Well- 
hausen, and other European biblical critics; and he has read the works 
of Spencer, Maine, Morgan, and other sociological writers of that period. 
The book is more significant for what it is, than for any positive results; 
and it is now almost unknown. The writer asserts the parallelism 
between Hebrew social evolution and that of other historic peoples; but 
he does not come within sight of the sociological problem of the Bible, 
for he does not perceive the composite nature of the Hebrew social 
group after the settlement in Canaan, nor the vital consequences involved 
in that fact. The book will always be well worth reading. 

It is impossible to give a consecutive and logical dating to the rise 
of sociological Bible-study. Two books by Professor W. Robertson 
Smith, of Cambridge University, have been very influential in this 
direction. One of these, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, was 
published in 1885; the other. The Religion of the Semites, was delivered 
in lecture form about 1889, and published shortly after. These books 
are distinctly sociological, in the scientific sense; and they bring the 
Bible well within their field. Similar work was done by Professor 
Wellhausen, of Marburg, in his Reste arabischen Heidentumes (Berlin, 
1887). In 1890 it was suggested by Mr. Joseph Jacobs, a sociological 
investigator, that the biblical higher critics were deficient from the 
standpoint of what he termed "institutional sociology.'" In 1892 
Professor Crawford H. Toy, of Harvard University, wrote: "Religion 
.... may be regarded as a branch of sociology, subject to all the laws 
that control general human progress."^ The term "bibhcal sociology" 
was first used, apparently, by Professor Shailer Mathews, of the Uni- 
versity of Chicago, in the Biblical World for January, 1895. Professor 

^ Cheyne, Founders oj Old Testament Criticism (London, 1893), p. 33°- 
2 Toy, Judaism and Christianity (Boston, 1892), p. i. 

299 



300 SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 

Mathews defined sociology in general as the attempt to discover the laws 
underlying human association; and he has since been active in pro- 
moting social study of religion. In 1898 Professor Graham Taylor, of 
Chicago Commons, also used the term, referring to "the demand for a 
distinct department of research and scientific formulation dealing with 
the social data of the Scriptures which ultimately is sure to create a 
biblical sociology" (American Journal of Theology, Vol. II, p. 891). In 
1899 Professor Frantz Buhl, of the University of Leipzig, issued a study 
of social institutions in Israel under the title Die socialen Verhaltnisse 
der Israeliten (Berlin). This treatise breaks no new ground; but it is 
an interesting sign of the drift of biblical studies. In 1900 Professor 
Graham Taylor published an elaborate Syllabus in Biblical Sociology 
(Chicago). This treatise was intended mainly for the use of theological 
students, as an exhibit of what had been done up to that time. In 1901 
Rev. Edward Day contributed to the "Semitic Series" (New York), a 
book entitled The Social Life of the Hebrews. In the same year (1901) 
Professor T. K. Cheyne, of Oxford University, writing in the Encyclopedia 
Biblica (col. 2057), noticed the entry of bibhcal criticism into a new 
phase, which is due among other influences to "comparative study of 
social customs." In 1902 Professor George A. Barton, of Bryn Mawr 
College, published a notable work, entitled A Sketch of Semitic Origins, 
Social and Religious (New York). This treatise cultivates the field 
marked out by Wellhausen and W. Robertson Smith. It is written in 
view of the results of historical criticism and many of the results of 
modern sociology; and while it devotes considerable attention to biblical 
religion, its chief interest is in the general Semitic field. Professor Ira 
M. Price, of the University of Chicago, is preparing an exhaustive work 
on the social customs of the ancient Hebrews in the light of modern 
research into Semitic civilization. 

In the American Journal of Sociology for May, 1902, the present 
writer has a paper which treats the connection of social development 
with Semitic religion and the Christian church. This paper is an 
advance study of a book issued in 1903, entitled An Examination of 
Society (Columbus, Ohio). A large part of that book is devoted to 
sociological study of material in the Old and New Testaments; and 
it foreshadows results later developed in more definite form. In 1905 
the same writer published a book entitled Egoism: A Study in the Social 
Premises of Religion (Chicago), in which the sociological problem of the 
Bible was recognized more clearly. In 1907 the same writer contributed 
to the periodical mentioned above, two papers entitled, "Sociological 



APPENDIX 301 

Significance of the Bible," and " Sociology and Theism." In the follow- 
ing year he contributed to the American Journal of Theology (Chicago, 
April, 1908) a paper entitled, "Professor Orr and Higher Criticism," 
suggesting the sociological deficiency of the older interpretation of the 
Bible, and the promise of development in the newer school of criticism. 
In the same year (1908) he began a systematic series, in the sociological 
journal mentioned above, entitled "Biblical Sociology." The first of 
these papers appeared in the September issue for that year; and the 
seventh and concluding instalment was published in the issue for 
November, 191 1. 

In the meanwhile courses having a sociological bearing on the Old 
Testament were given at various institutions, as follows: Minnesota 
State University, by Professor Samuel G. Smith; Chicago Theological 
Seminary, by Professor Graham Taylor; Harvard University Divinity 
Summer School, by Professor Lewis B. Paton; Pacific Theological 
Seminary, by Professor William F. Bade; Newton Theological Institu- 
tion, by Professor Winfred N. Donovan; Ohio State University, by Mr. 
Louis Wallis. 

In 1910 Professor Samuel G. Smith, of Minnesota State University, 
published a book entitled. Religion in the Making: A Study in Biblical 
Sociology (New York). This book is a useful advertisement of the 
connection between sociology and the Bible; but it contains no statement 
of the implied problem, and advances no working hypothesis which 
throws light on the origin of distinctive Hebrew institutions.' 

The book to which the present historical note is an appendix is a 
revision of the papers published in the American Journal of Sociology by 
the present writer. 

BOOKS ON SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF THE BIBLE 
A printed list has been prepared for the use of those who desire to 
know the titles of reliable books on the Bible from the modern scientific 
standpoint. This will be supplied on receipt of four cents in stamps. 

'A review of Professor Smith's book was contributed to the Biblical World 
(Chicago), April, 1910, by the present writer. Professor Smith used the term "bibhcal 
sociology" in correspondence with me, before it appeared at the head of my series in 
the American Journal of Sociology; but at the time the series commenced, I supposed 
the term was original with me. Investigation shows, however, as indicated above, 
that this combination was used as far back as 1895 at least; and it now appears to 
have suggested itself to a number of writers independently. 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS 



Abimelek, 109 

Abraham, 56, 94 

Adams and Stephens, 267, 269 

Adams, G. B., 272 

Addis, W. E., 136, 184 

Adeney, W. F., 248 

Adoption, 44 

Amorite, "iniquity of," 35-37, 94, 95, 

201, 202 
Amorites, xxiv, xxv; sale of land by, 91; 

cities of, IDS, 106; race distinction 

lost, 122 
Amorite and Canaanite, 21, 108 
Ark of Yahweh, 126 
Arabs, 89 
Araunah, 91, 137 
Augustine, 256 
Authorized Version, 284 
Authority, biblical, conflicting, 188 

Baal, or family head, 41, 48, 158 

Baals, or Baalim, local gods identified 

with civilization, xxvi, 72; of the 

border, 174; and Yahweh, 98, 133 
Baal-class, contraction of, 161 
Baal-idea, a foil, 86 
Baalism, and mishpat, 195; a "fulcrum," 

197 
Baal-names, and Yahweh-names, 113, 

119 
Baal-zebub, or Beelzebub, 99 
Bacon, B. W., 245 
Barton, G. A., 39, 63 
Bayitk, family, 45 
Bible, seance view of, 256, 283 
Ben Hiir, 59 

Biblical World, xv, xxxii, 16, 217, 295 
Blackstone, W., 271 

Book of the Wars of Yahweh, 30, 100, 131 
Breasted, J. H., 9, 70, 92, 120, 128, 175 
Briggs, C. A., 37 
Brown, Francis, xvi 



Bryce, J., 272 

Budde, K., 82,93, 118, 177 

Bury, J. B., xviii, 15 

Carpenter, J. E., 215 

Catholicism, and "Amoritism," 249; 
and Bible-study, 250, 274 

Charity, and wages, 218 

Cheyne, T. K., 216 

Chemosh, of Moab, 74, 76 

Christianity, personal, 236; not social- 
ism, 239 

Church and State, connected, 63 

Church, present function of, xxxii, 3, 297 

Civilization, despotic tendencies, 175 

Clan, Hebrew, 47, 154 

Clarke, W. N., 10 

Cone, O., 241 

Cook, S. A., xvi 

Comill, C, 192 

Dan, or Laish, 31 

David, 55, 65, 77, 130 

Davidson, A. B., 80, 183, 207 

Day of Yahweh, 220 

Deuteronomy, 135, 170, 191, 198 

Deuteronomic school, and Baalism, 198 

Dobschiitz, E., 241 

Doughty, C. M., 89, 93, 142 

Drama, the biblical, 99 

Edh, altar of, 19 

Egypt, 100, 129 

El, elohim, 64; sons of, 67 

Elijah, 177 

Elisha, 55 

Ephod, 77 

Erman, A., 129 

Ezekiel, 201, 205 

Family, Hebrew, 41 
Fisher, G. P., 245, 282 
Foster, F. H., 10 



305 



3o6 



SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 



Frazer, J. G., 64 

Froude, J. A., 234, 278, 279 

Genesis, and hill-country, 106 

Ger, the, 45 

Gibbon, E., 246 

Gibborim, 142, 153 

Gibeonites, 114, 120 

Gideon, 48, 77, 108 

Gilbert, G. H., xvi, 257, 281 

Gilead, Judah, etc., 136 

God, leader in redemption, 7 

Gods, the, as members of society, 62; 

inhale incense, 162 
Goel, Yahweh as, 208 
Goodspeed, G. S., 9, 92, 120, 128, 145 
Goyim, 49 
Gray, G. B., 44 

Green, J. R., 122, 254, 276, 277 
Green, W. H., 12 
Group, social, 14 

Hallam, H., 246 

Hannibal, 100 

Hamack, A., 241, 256 

Hebrews, national development peculiar, 

95, 176; social diversity of, 135-37 
Hefele, C. J., 246 
Henderson, E. F., 253 
Hexateuch, xxiv, 20, 32, 44 
Holiness Code, 201 
Hommel, F., 93 
Hosea, 185 
Hyksos, xxix, 96 

Iliad, 68, 162 

Indians, 88 

Individualism and socialism, 295 

Interest, 89, 90, 158 

Isaiah, Book of, 183 

Jastrow, M., 9, 128 

Jebb, R. C., 120 

Jehu, 179 

Jehonadab, or Jonadab, 180 

Jerusalem, 107, 108, 120, 121 

Jeroboam, 142 

Jeremiah, 195 

Jesus, II, 228 f. 



Jews, XXV, 209 

Job, 156 

Jordan, L. H., xvii 

Josiah, 189, 190, 193 

Josephus, 223 

Judaism, orthodox, 216, 231 

Judges, shopheiim, 98; Book of, 137, 199 

Kassites, xxix, 96 
Kautsch, E., 105, 192 
Kenite, hypothesis, 82 
Kent, C. F., 177 
Earkpatrick, A. F., 164 
Kittel, R., 94, 105 
Kuenen, A., xii, 12 

Laboring class, Hebrew, 60 

Lagrange, L. M., 63 

Landownership, 53 

Land question, 92, 154, 270 

Law and Prophets, reversed, xi, 212 

Law, Roman, 270 

Lindsay, T. M., 270, 272, 274, 277, 280 

Loisy, A., 192 

Lollardy, 268 

Luckenbill, D. D., 175 

Luther, Martin, 272 

Macaulay, T. B., 235 

Macdonald, D., 68, 69, 75 

Mathews, S., 241 

Manasseh, 187 

Manufacturing class, Hebrew, 58 

Marti, K., 99, 117, 184, 192 

McCurdy, J. F., 135, 184 

McGiffert, A. C., 240, 282 

Meat, tainted, law of, 46, 158 

Merchant class, Hebrew, 58 

Mesha, of Moab, 76 

Messianism, 220 

Mihnan, H. H., 246 

Mishpat, xxvii, 5, 90; Samuel on, 92; 

in Judges period, 112; and hok, 198; 

Yahweh and, 112, 117; stages of 

struggle, 173, 174, 185 
Mishphachah, Hebrew clan, 47, 154 
Mohar, 43 
Mommsen, T., 68 
Monasticism, 249 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS 



307 



Moses, 82 
Motley, J. L., 277 
Miiller, A., 142 
Mythology, xx, xxi 

Nabal, 55 

Nabi, 147 

Naboth, 144 

National evolution, Hebrew, 95, 96, 176 

Nebuchadrezzar, prayer to Marduk, 8 

Nehemiah, 209 

New Testament, and slavery, 159, 243; 

completion of, 250 
Niebuhr, B. G., xix, xx 
Nomadism, and civilization, 88 
Northern Kingdom, destruction of, 187 

Old Testament, a moral work, 33 
Orr, J., xvii, 12, 191, 241 

Palfrey, J. G., 89 

Pantheon, Hebrew, 138 

Paul, 242 

Peabody, F. G., 241 

Peace treaty, Amorite, 113, 114 

Peasantry, Assyrian, 144 

Persecution, religious, 63 

Philemon, 244 

Philistines, 115 

Piety, Jewish, 215 

Prediction, not prophetic test, 170 

Price, I. M., 133 

Priestly documents, 202 

Property, male inheritance of, 44 

Prophecy, banished by the Bible, 214 

Prophets, "genius" of, xvii; as preach- 
ers, 147; and niishpat, 148, 150; not 
democrats, 157, 160; two classes of, 
164-68; alleged originality of, 183; 
early Judean, 102, 183, 200 

Protestantism, orthodox, 279, 280 

Rainy, R., 241, 245, 246, 248 

Rauschenbusch, W., 241 

Records of the English Bible, Pollard, 275 

Rechabites, 181 

Reformation, and history, 264; and 

Yahweh-Baal struggle, 272; climax 

of, 276 



Religion, Bible, twofold, 3 
Renan, E., 136, 142 
Riggs, J. S., 216 
Robinson, H. W., 127 
Rogers, J. E. T., 266, 268 
Romiilus and Remus, xix 
Ruth, 75 

Samuel, 92, 141, 146 

Sanctuaries, local, 22, 127, 190 

Sanday, W., xvi 

Saul, 114 

Sayce, A. H., 128 

Schaff, P., 280, 287 

Seance view, of Bible, 215, 256, 282, 283 

Shophet, shaphat, etc., 47, 98, 112 

Silver, demonetization, 143 

Sirach, Wisdom of, 219 

Skinner, J., 174 

Slavery, 49, 51, 158 

Small, A. W., xxxiv, 264 

Small and Vincent, xxxiv, 296 

Smith, G. A., xiii, 135, 189 

Smith, H. P., 138, 142, 189 

Smith, Preserved, 274, 281 

Smith, W. R., 63, 64, 136, 177, 215 

Socialism, and individualism, 295, 296 

Sociology, xxii, 13, 14, 227, 228 

Solomon, 121 

Southern Kingdom, and mishphat, 182 

Steindorfif, G., 129 

Taylor, H., 272 
Tent of Meeting, 17, 20 
Teraphim, 70, 71 
Theology, 10, 97 
Third estate, 60, 61 
Treaty, Amorite, 113 
Trevelyan, G. M., 268 

Urim and Thummim, 77 

Villages, Hebrew, 54 
Vincent, G. E., xxiii, 14 

Walker, G. L., 6 
Weber, A., 257 
Wellhausen, J., xi, xvi 
White, A. D., 283 



3o8 



SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE BIBLE 



Wikliffe, John, 267 
Wildeboer, G., 212 
Winckler, H., 93 
Wratislaw, A. H., 268 

Yahweh, the name, xiii; and Baal, xxvi; 
early cult of, 73; covenant with, 80; 
contrasted views about, 96; in Judges 
period, 116; rain-function of, 118; 



"increase" of, 128; as "god of gods," 
130; and the Amorite Baals, 133; 
tendency to "baalize" him, 134, 176; 
speaks to Jehu, 180; as goel, or Re- 
deemer, 206-8 
Yahweh-Baal struggle, loi, 102, 104, 185 
Yahweh religion, conditions of its 
development, 86 



m-^ 



R 13 ISIZ 



\j /Vs:--ki 






^ "^ " " \> ^ > '^ " , ^ 



%'• 



^V 



"r -^ 



-> ,V 



^^^^^^:^^ r>^->C;%<^ 






, f?, ,5) «^ ^ 



s ■ J&> 









o'S'^ 






■Ob rV ^ ^ " A % 



:;#.- ,# -^ 



0^ . 



c^' 






'^ ^-f ** ^"^ \^ 



«?; 11 m\ Y 






0^' 












f % 



^ 

/ ""<:> 






^s ^. 



.s^ -^ 



:v^,c^ 



^ -^ -./..-^\r^ ^ o:«-^^%#^ -^ 



<. 



c^' 









O- 










\ * ,. 'O" 










'^KJjr^" J^ •a,^ 






«r 



0,^'' 



o. 



/* \d^-*^ N. -CL^^ 






aH C 



'^ v^^ 



iSr' 


















i^ 










^^ 



v 



^^' 



^^^ 

^ 



^ ^^ 









^^ :iM\ "^^^ 



:. , / <?<- --lis,' 4^°-^ --^m-: i ■■ 



o/% 



« (Of 



-^^c 




1 J - ^ ■ J - ^ 



■^^ 1§M>^\ ■'^< 



.^^ 



V 









' * i, s '' .J^ 



cS ^. 



i^:^ 1 



< 



'■;." -^0 



.V 



.V' 



^^ 



C' V 




^ V ft „ <-- Deacidified using the Bookkeeper proces 
^ ' <- "^ Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
■ "■ '"j "^ Treatment Date: May 2005 

PreservationTechnologie 



\^^ 






-^'0^ 



^X^■ 



".%: 



<^^ 


















'» 'c^ 



..^ 






C 



•0' 















#' 



.^^ ^- 






.^ 






% ^^^^V"'^% ^^.^y':'.\ c^.^-"".^% <9\ 



t 









<^..^^ 



aO 



# 



% ^ 



%.d« 






^'^'::^^^\^ 



cS ^^ 



v\, t^^^ ''^% - 






-<>. 



.s 






oHo, 






,^- ^^. 



.N^ 



-o. 



O- 



%..,x^^' 






~iHQ_,-.^ s ,.\f.^ <?" /-^ <>.lH^y^ V r^ 



•^^0^ 












,<^ °- 



■o, 












'^ 



cp^ >^:/:'» '^ 









'i7; 












■^^ 









